The High Court in Revision dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate's dismissal of a criminal complaint. The Court held the matter was a civil dispute over non-repayment of funds and no offence of cheating was disclosed in the complaint.
Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
CRL.R.C.NO.186 OF 2020
A.Habibur Rahman, S/o, Abdul Muthalifa ... Petitioner
Versus
PRAYER:-
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order in C.M.P.No.1977 of 2019 by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai dated 21.10.2019.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 21.10.2019 passed in C.M.P.No.1977 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
The petitioner and his family members were doing business jointly for many years. At present, the petitioner is having
readymade shop at Velchery and his elder brother A.Mohammed Mustafa, the first respondent herein is also having footwear shop at Maduranthangam and his younger brother is having a footwear shop at Velachery. Whileso, the owner of the elder brother's shop premises had informed that he had intended to sell the property. On hearing the same, his elder brother had proposed to purchase the same and since he was not having enough money to purchase the same, he had requested the second respondent, his younger brother to give the amount as hand loan. The third respondent, who is the wife of the second respondent had refused to give amount as loan and had suggested that she would purchase the shop portion and allow the first respondent to run it on a rental basis. She and her husband requested the petitioner to give amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to purchase the property. She was also aware that the petitioner was having money for his daughter's marriage. She assured that she would pay Rs.15,000/- per month till the date of repayment of the amount. Believing their words, the petitioner gave the said amount. Thereafter, the third respondent and her husband did not come forward to repay the amount to the petitioner and when the petitioner questioned, they had replied that have high level influence and also refused to pay Rs.15,000/- per month and also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Since the accused threatened the petitioner, he preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Velachery Police Station, Chennai on 19.01.2019. Since the Police had refused to register the complaint, the petitioner had filed an application in Crl.O.P.No.5376 of 2019 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated 02.12.2019, had granted liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13681 of 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned XVIII Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet. The learned Magistrate found that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and had refused to take the complaint on file stating that no prima facie case is made out, against which, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Case before this Court.
siblings. The third respondent is the wife of the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 had borrowed an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- from him for the purchase of a shop and they had agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month till the entire amount of Rs.8,50,000/- is repaid. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents had not only refused to return the money but also had threatened him. The petitioner had preferred a complaint to the police and since no action was taken, the petitioner had approached this court and the court had directed him to work out his remedy in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13681 of 2018. The petitioner had, thereafter, preferred a complaint before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, finding that the dispute between the parties was in respect of a money dispute, which is civil in nature and also finding that the complaint does not disclose any ingredients of the offences alleged, had dismissed the same.
complaint preferred to the Police and the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate do not disclose any offences of cheating, this court is of the opinion that an attempt has been made by the petitioner to convert a civil dispute regarding non repayment of money as a criminal case. The Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly deprecated the practice of converting civil disputes into criminal disputes. The learned Magistrate, rightly finding that no offence as alleged is made out in the complaint, had dismissed the petition.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mfa/ssk
To
The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.
+2ccs to M/s.Vedavalli Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.57405
CRL.R.C.NO.186 OF 2020
PMK(CO) PBS/03/12/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Regional Court should set aside the Magistrate Order dismissing the criminal complaint on the ground that no prima facie case was made out.
Whether the facts disclosed in the complaint amount to cheating or merely constitute a civil dispute regarding non-repayment of money.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13681 of 2018Referred¶15
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Habibur Rahman
A.Mohammed Mustafa
A.Abdul Wahid
Faridha Banu
A.D. Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
