Dismissed

Geetha v. Devika

Madras HC11 Dec 2023CRL RC/2094/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside an order dismissing a petition to alter charges under Section 138 of NI Act to Section 420 IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding alteration was not necessary, but granted liberty to file a private complaint for cheating and related offences.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file a private complaint for offence under Section 420 IPC and any other offence.

Geetha Vs Devika — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.2094 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.2094 of 2023

¶7

Geetha ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Devika ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 13.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.5481 of 2022 in C.C.No.210 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 13.03.2023 made in C.M.P.No.5481 of 2022 in C.C.No.210 of 2018

¶14

pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur.

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.R.C.No.2094 of 2023

¶18

2.The petitioner as complainant filed a private complaint against the respondent in C.C.No.210 of 2018. Later the petitioner filed a petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to alter the charges against the respondent from Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to Section 420 of IPC. According to the petitioner, the case projected by the petitioner right from the initial stage when statutory notice was issued, filing of complaint and in chief examination is that the respondent received the amount on promise which turned to be a false promise and later, he had not discharged the liability and honoured the cheque, hence proceeded with the trial.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that earlier the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent for the offence under Sections 420 and 506(ii) IPC on 17.07.2018 before the District Crime Branch, Salem. Though FIR was registered, the complaint could not be further investigated for the reason that the cheque confirming the payment promised by the respondent could not be produced since case under Section 138 of NI Act was already initiated and for that reason, complaint was

¶20

2/4

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.R.C.No.2094 of 2023

¶23

closed. He further submitted that case filed under Section 138 of NI Act in C.C.No.210 of 2018 is posted for judgment.

¶24

4.Considering the submissions made and in view of the fact that the

¶25

Lower Court finding that Sections need no alterations dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Lower Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint for offence under Section 420 IPC. Neither the closure of FIR in Crime No.12 of 2018 will come in the way nor C.C.No.210 of 2018 in the event of the petitioner proceeding against the respondent for the offence under Section 420 IPC and any other offence. The private complaint to be considered and disposed of on its own merits.

¶26

11.12.2023

¶27

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cse

¶28

3/4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.2094 of 2023

¶31

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶32

cse

¶33

¶34

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur.

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.2094 of 2023

¶36

11.12.2023

¶37

4/4

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Geetha v. Devika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha v. Devika

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

R.Janaki Vs D.Kannan

G.Loganathan Vs the State Rep.by

Arockiyasamy @ Suresh Vs State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police

Munusamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Vargish Vs State Rep.by

Neelakandan Vs State Rep by, the Sub Inspector of Police