K. Sundararajan v. R. Chellamuthu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.14527 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007K. Sundararajan.. Petitioner/ComplainantVersus1.R. Chellamuthu2.S. Rajakrishnan3.K. Suresh4.S.Subramanian5.R. Palanisamy6.P. Sellamuthu .. Respondents/AccusedPetition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to set aside theorder dated 14.03.2007 made in Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2006 on the file ofAdditional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3),Dharapuram, by confirming the order dated 30.01.2006 made inCrl.M.P.No.632 of 2005 in C.C.No.179 of 2002 on the file of JudicialMagistrate, Dharapuram and direct the Judicial Magistrate to allowthe petition made in C.M.P.No.632 of 2005 on the file of JudicialMagistrate, Kangeyam.For Petitioner : M/s. S. Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.N.ManokaranO R D E RThe prayer of the petitioner herein is to set aside the orderdated 14.03.2007 made in Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2006 on the file ofAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III,Dharapuram, by confirming the order of the learned JudicialMagistrate, Dharapuram in Crl.M.P.No.632 of 2005 in C.C.No.179 of2002 on his file and to allow Crl.M.P.No. 632 of 2005.2.It is alleged by the petitioner that he filed a privatecomplaint against the respondents herein for offences under Sec. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 468, 467 and 471 IPC. The Learned Magistrate took the complaint onfile as CC.No.179 of 2002. The allegation in the complaint is thaton 01.06.2001, the respondents herein forcibly took the petitionerherein and obtained his signatures on various documents and alsothumb impression in the Registrar Office at Kankeyam, that with thehelp of forged power of attorney obtained loan from Canara Bank andthat the petitioner filed Criminal M.P.No.632 of 2005 to call for thedocuments stated in the above petition from the Sub-Rregistrar officeand Canara Bank, Kankeyam and sent the same for expert's opinionregarding authenticity of signatures in the document and also thumbimpression and to examine the expert, pertaining to the allegedforged document. It is the further averment of the petitioner thatthe signature found in the receipt issued by the Sub-Registraroffice, Kankeyam for registering the power of attorney dated26.02.2001 is not signed by the petitioner and it is a forged one andthat the left thumb impression found in the Thumb Impression Registerwas obtained from the petitioner by threat and coercion but thesignature found in the thumb impression is not that of thepetitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the reasonsgiven by the courts below for dismissing the Cr.M.P.No.632 of 2005are untenable and unjust and contrary to Law and the courts belowerred in law in coming to the conclusion that already the allegedforged documents were compared with the signature and thumbimpression of the petitioner. The petitioner's further submissionis that the courts below ought to have rejected the expert opinionsince the opinion given by the expert was on the basis of xeroxcopies of alleged documents and not by comparison of the allegeddocuments with the original. It is further stated by the petitionerthat the expert opinion was given only on request by Police and notby the petitioner and hence the conclusion of the courts below thatno appeal, with respect to the experts opinion, was filed iserroneous. The petitioner further submits that he had filed a CivilSuit seeking to prove his title over the property and to set asidethe General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by thepetitioner on 26.02.2006, in O.S.No.218 of 2004 on the file of theDistrict Munsif Court, Kankeyam. The findings of the Courts belowthat the Civil Court dealt with the same subject matter is erroneous.It is stated by the petitioner that he is seeking to get the expertopinion only to prove forgery committed by the respondents herein andthe expert opinion will definitely be of help for deciding the case.The petitioner therefore submits that this court may set aside theorders of the Court below and allow Criminal M.P.No.632 of 2005.3.I have heard the respective contentions put forth by thelearned counsels for both sides and averments made in the petition.It is seen from the order of the Trial Court that the Trial in thiscase has commenced, PW’s 1,2 & 3 on the side of the complainant hasbeen examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 have also been marked on thecomplainant’s side. And the evidence on the complainant’s side hasbeen closed and the case stands posted for defence evidence, and atthis stage, the complainant has filed this criminal M.P.No.632 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2005 for sending the documents to an expert. The Trial Court hasfurther found that on a petition earlier filed under section 153 (3)Cr.P.C., the alleged documents have been sent for comparison to theexpert for his opinion and a report has been received therefor in theTrial Court and the petitioner herein failed to take any furtheraction on that report. That the petitioner herein has just statedthat his signature were obtained in the Sub-Registrar’s office werenot his signatures. The Trial Court therefore found that thepetitioner has not specifically denied the signatures found in thedocuments of the Sub Registrar's Office, that he has just stated thatthose signatures were obtained by threat and coercion and that asalready a report of the fingerprint expert has been produced in thiscase, the petitioner's prayer in the petition now filed is notsustainable. The trial court therefore dismissed the petition.4.As against this decision of the Trial Court, the petitionerherein preferred a Criminal Revision Petition in Criminal R.C.No.25of 2006 before the Fast Track Court No.III, Darapuram. The FastTrack Court held that even though, the petitioner herein, had statedthat his signatures on the records of the Sub-Registrar’s office wereobtained by threat and his thumb impression in the records wereobtained by forcibly taking him and by threat, a civil case has beenfiled with respect to the General Power of Attorney and in that thepetitioner herein has raised the very same prayer as now raisedherein. The Fast Track Court further held that the petitioner hasnot produced by evidence to prove that he was forcibly taken and thesignatures were obtained under threat even though he has notspecifically denied his signatures. The petitioner herein has filedanother petition to implead one Balakrishnan also as an accused andthat petition also has been dismissed. In an earlier complaint(Crime No.251 of 2001) which was taken on file as C.C.No.165 of 2001,filed by the petitioner herein, that the accused forcibly took himand obtained his signature and thumb impression, the respondents havebeen acquitted. The Fast Track Court has further held that theexpert opinion already obtained is to the effect that the allegedforged signatures and the admitted signatures are one and the same.The Fast Track Court further held that the petitioner is in the habitof filing petition after petition just to drag on the case,especially when the case is in part heard stage. The Fast TractCourt therefore dismissed the Revision and confirmed the order of theTrial Court. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents arguedthat when an earlier Criminal Revision filed was dismissed by theSessions Court, the person aggrieved cannot knock the doors of theHigh Court by way of a petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., and hence thepresent petition filed by the petitioner herein is not sustainable.In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of theSupreme Court reported in “Kailash Verma ..Vs.. Punjab State Civil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supplies Corporation and another ((2005) 2 Supreme Court cases 571)”wherein the Supreme Court held that "In view of the Prohibition under Sections 397(3)and 482 – second revision before High Court after thedismissal of first one by Sessions Court – Bar inrespect of – Remedy under Sec.482 – availability of -Grounds for - If on facts, S.482 rightly invoked –held, in view of the prohibition under S.397(3), thecomplainant or the accused cannot be allowed to takerecourse to a second revision, but High Court canentertain a petition under Sec.482 when there isserious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the processof the court or when mandatory provisions of law arenot complied with and when the High Court feels thatthe inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correctthe mistake committed by the Revisional Court."6.In the case on hand, the courts below have correctlyconsidered the materials available and I see there is no miscarriageof Justice or abuse of process of Court and as such exercise ofpowers under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C., by this Court is not warranted. ThePetition now filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., amounts only to a SecondRevision which cannot be entertained. 7.With the result, this Criminal Original Petition isdismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal M.P.No.1 of 2007 is alsodismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarmraTo1.Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Dharapuram.2.Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.3. Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, SR.27794 Crl.O.P.No.14527 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007ckn(co)pmk.17.8.2009