Dismissed

R.Ravi v. State Rep by

Madras HC19 Apr 2023CRL RC/655/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a police officer against an order rejecting his request for FIR registration. The officer claimed his cheque was stolen; the court held he materially benefited from the rejection as he avoided premature prosecution. The trial court rightly found the petition lacked essential details before any case was instituted against the petitioner

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed at the admission stage; the impugned order refusing FIR registration was upheld.

R.Ravi Vs State Rep by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date of Reserving Order Date of Pronouncing Order 11.04.2023 19.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶7

R.Ravi, M/A 53 years S/o.Ramasamy D.No.35, Natarajapuram 2^nd Street, Namakkal Taluk Namakkal District. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal 2.Venkatesh S/o.Rajendran D/o.74/44, Sivaji Street Attur Town and Taluk Salem District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 28.02.2023 made in Crl.MP.No.6606 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal.

¶11

1/7

¶12

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

¶13

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jayan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja (for R1) Government Advocate

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Petition has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2023 made in

¶17

Crl.MP.No.6606 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal.

¶18

2.The Complainant is the Revision Petitioner, working as Special Sub Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Police Department at Namakkal District. While things being so, on 17.09.2022, the Petitioner received a legal Notice from an Advocate Viz., M.Vinoth stating that he has obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the 2 nd Respondent and for the said debt, the Petitioner issued a cheque bearing Number 021300 drawn at State Bank of India at Namakkal branch to the 2 nd Respondent. He does not aware of the 2 nd Respondent and the Petitioner does not have any iota of transaction with him in earlier occasion.

¶19

3.Aggrieved by the said Notice, reply also issued by the Petitioner. Upon

¶20

2/7

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶23

acquiring the knowledge that the Petitioner's cheque has been stolen and misused by the 2 nd Respondent, the Petitioner immediately on 20.09.2022 lodged a complaint as against the 2 nd Respondent before the 1 st Respondent Police and thereafter, sent the complaint/detailed representation to the District Superintendent on 27.10.2022 and to the Police Officials, who were received the same and failed to take action as against the claim of the Petitioner pertains to the stolen cheque misused by the 2 nd Respondent. Thereafter in view of no proper investigation scrutinized by the Police Officials, the Petitioner preferred an Application u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal in Crl.M.P.No.6606 of 2022 and on refusal to take the Petition on file by the trial Magistrate, this Revision.

¶24

4.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

¶25

5.Learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have ordered for proper investigation on the claim of the Petitioner, even though there is no proper evidence that how the

¶26

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶28

Petitioner's cheque went to the 2 nd Respondent, the same has to be found out by the 1 st Respondent in their investigation.

¶29

6.After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Government Advocate draw my attention to the finding given by the learned Judicial Magistrate at paragraph No.4 of the impugned order. O n perusal of the typed set of papers along with order passed by the trial Court, I find that the Defacto Complainant/Respondent has issued a legal notice for dishonour of cheque to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/-, the Revision Petitioner herein, who is Special Sub

¶30

Inspector has moved a private complaint alleging that the 2^nd Respondent herein has misused his cheque and created a cheque as if the value of cheque is Rs.7,00,000/- and presented the cheque before the bank and got the bouncing order of return of cheque and is proposed to initiate 138 proceedings before the competent court. He alleged that on acquiring the knowledge that the Petitioner’s cheque was stolen and misused, he preferred the complaint to District Superintendent on 27.10.2022, since there was no action by the District Superintendent, he had presented the application under Section 156(3) of

¶31

Cr.P.C.

¶32

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶34

7.Based upon the sworn statement, the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal has observed that the Revision Petitioner has not stated that his cheque was stolen or misplaced and he is not stated, to whom the cheque was given. All he could state in his sworn statement is based on somebody’s illadvice, someone has misused the cheque, trying to take advantage of the cheque. He has not deposed as to how his cheque has gone to the hands of the person, who had issued the legal notice and hence, he found that the complaint is bereft of details and accordingly rejected the request of registration of FIR.

¶35

8.After hearing the learned Government Advocate and perusing the trial court's order, I find that the Revision Petitioner is crying, before being hit. In fact, in anticipation of his cheque dishonour case against him, before the learned Magistrate, he has come forward with the plea, however, without bereft of details. Hence, the trial Court has rightly rejected the case of the Revision Petitioner, who is working of Special Sub Inspector in Pallipalayam Police Station, Namakkal. It is open to the Petitioner to raise al these pleas by way of defense before the Special Magistrate Court for dishonour of cheque, if the case

¶36

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶38

has instituted against him.

¶39

9.The complaint in CMP.No.6606 of 2022, does not disclose any cognizable offences and hence I am not inclined to admit the Criminal revision Petition. In this view of the matter, order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal, for the reasons stated supra is well considered and well merited and does not warrant any interference of this Court.

¶40

10.In fine, with the above observation, this Petition is Dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶41

19.04.2023

¶42

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶43

sai

¶44

To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal.

¶45

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶46

6/7

¶47

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

¶48

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶49

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,

¶50

sai

¶51

Pre-delivery Order made in

¶52

Crl.RC.No.655 of 2023

¶53

Dated: 19.04.2023

¶54

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Ravi v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ravi v. State Rep by

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

Kannamma Vs M.L.Ravikumar

D.Sherfunnisa Begam Vs T.Karuppusamy

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Amutha

M/S.Superfine Bleaching Company Ltd., Vs the Inspector of Police

Rani Vs Venkatesan

A.S.Munnavar Basha Vs M.Sudalaiyandi