Allowed

R.Karthick v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC17 Jun 2022CRL OP/4532/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition to quash a criminal complaint alleging cheating and forgery arising from a commercial dispute over outstanding dues between a franchisee dealer and a company manager, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court found the matter to be a civil dispute and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; Criminal Complaint C.C.No.24 of 2017 quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

R.Karthick Vs State Rep. by Its — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on : 28.04.2022

¶3

Delivered on : 17.06.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

CRL.O.P.No.4532 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2713 & 2714 of 2019

R.Karthick

... Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep. By its Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

¶11

S.Selvam ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Chidambaram and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arunachalam

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 O R D E R

¶15

This Petition had been filed to quash the case in C.C.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Chidambaram.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Franchisee Dealer by the Respondent. The Respondent/Complainant was a Manager of M/s.Sri Bhagyalakshmi Poha Industries, Bangalore and they were supplying wholesale provisions to the retail businessmen. As per the business transaction, there is a dispute regarding outstanding dues from M/s.Sri Bhagyalakshmi Poha Industries. It is the case of the Petitioner that the provisions supplied

¶17

by M/s.Sri Bhagyalakshmi Poha Industries was not of good quality. Therefore, he had returned the same as its affected his quantity. While so, the Respondent who claims to be the Manager of M/s.Sri Bhagyalakshmi Poha Industries had preferred a Complaint before the District Crime Branch, Cuddalore as though the Petitioner herein had committed forgery, fraud and cheating. Earlier prior to the legal notice between the Petitioner and the Respondent towards disputed amount, what is to be considered as a civil dispute had been converted into a criminal case by the Respondent herein only with an intention to cause harassment and extort money from the Petitioner herein. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash the complaint. As per the claim of the Respondent outstanding is Rs.4,44,649/as per the admitted figures by the Petitioner is only Rs.1,14,020/-.

¶18

Based on the said submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court had raised a query whether the subject matter can be referred for mediation. At that time, the learned Counsel who made representation on behalf of the defacto complainant submitted that he has yet to file vakalath. Therefore, the case was repeatedly adjourned viz., 07.04.2022, 18.04.2022, 20.04.2022 and 27.04.2022.

¶19

Till 27.04.2022, learned Counsel who represented the defaco complainant did not file vakalath and did not cooperate with the Court either for mediation or for raising objection to quash the complaint. The name of the defacto complainant was printed but the Counsel did not appear on 07.04.2022, 18.04.2022 and 27.04.2022. Therefore, the case was “Reserved for Orders”. Even though the case is reserved for orders, till date he did not file vakalth or written submissions. Therefore, from the perusal of the typed sets along with this Petition, it is found that it is nothing but a civil dispute and there had been exchange of notice between the Petitioner and the Respondent. When the Petitioner seeks to claim from the Respondent a sum of Rs.1,14,020/-, the claim of M/s.Sri Bhagyalakshmi Poha Industries through Respondent had to be supported with proper invoices and other accounts maintained by the Respondent. Therefore, what had been stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is found justified. The dispute between the Company and the Petitioner as a Franchisee Dealer regarding the outstanding amount cannot be converted into a criminal case. Therefore, the filing of Criminal Complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC before the District Crime Branch and laying the final report of the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chidambaram. It is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the case in C.C.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Chidambaram is quashed.

¶20

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate – II, Chidambaram.

¶28

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

¶29

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.M.Arunachalam, Advocate SR. No. 36817

¶31

CRL.O.P.No.4532 of 2019

¶32

RK (CO) PR (13/07/2022)

R.Karthick v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Karthick v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Vidya Vs State Rep by

R.Ramkumar Vs D.Durgadevi

K.Palayamuthu Vs Inspector of Police

Nirmala Mary Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Indian Institute of Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Icici Bank Ltd.

Vijayraj Surana Vs Uco Bank