Senthil Vs Kesavan

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to allow the above criminal revision petition by setting aside the order dated 25.05.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.7402 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Baskaran For R1 : Mr.G.K.Sekar For R2 : Mr.D.Praveen For R3 : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.1459 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The revision has been filed challenging the dismissal of the petitioner’s application in Crl.M.P.No.7402 of 2022 filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶19

The gist of the petitioner’s allegation is that since the petitioner was unhappy with the previous counsel who had appeared for him before the Sub Court in O.S.No.125 of 2012, he had engaged the first respondent herein. It is alleged that the first respondent introduced the second respondent herein. The first respondent, who is a lawyer, demanded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards legal fees and directed the petitioner to execute certain bonds and documents between 2016 and 2020. It is further alleged that the petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs.7,64,000/-. When the petitioner questioned the first respondent as to why the case had not been disposed of, the first respondent allegedly asked the petitioner to take back the case and attempted to misuse the cheques issued by the petitioner.

¶20

It is further alleged that when the petitioner once again approached the first respondent, the first respondent abused the petitioner in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.1459 of 2023

¶24

Since the police did not take any action, the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate by filing a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration, found that the complaint discloses only certain monetary transactions between the petitioner and his lawyer, namely the first respondent herein, and that no cognizable offence has been made out.

¶25

The learned Magistrate further held that the offences under Sections 294(b), 465, 468, 406, 417, 447, 448 and 506(ii) of IPC are not attracted, as the alleged occurrence did not take place in a public place and there was no real threat.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations constitute cognizable offences and that the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the first respondent, however, submitted that the second respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein, and that a

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.1459 of 2023

¶31

settlement was arrived at between the parties, by which the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,93,000/- in full and final settlement of all claims made by the second respondent. It was further submitted that the petitioner had agreed not to file any further complaint against the respondents. A copy of the settlement agreement was also produced for perusal.

¶32

This Court finds that the allegations predominantly relate to monetary transactions between the petitioner and his lawyer / first respondent herein. The allegations, at best, disclose breach of promise or negligence in service, which cannot be agitated through criminal proceedings.

¶33

There is no allegation to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, as the complaint does not disclose that the respondent uttered any obscene words or committed any obscene act in a public place. The allegation of threat also does not disclose any real threat as contemplated under law.

¶34

Further, it is seen that the parties have since arrived at a settlement in the proceedings initiated by the second respondent in S.T.C.No.1303 of 2021.

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.R.C.No.1459 of 2023

¶38