High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
P.Baskar v. Palanivel - Crl.R.C.(MD).No.682 of 2006  RD-TN 1295 (4 April 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04/04/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.682 of 2006
M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2006
P.Baskar ... Petitioner
3.Petchi Muthu ... Respondents
Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2006 dated 27.06.2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi
For Respondents: Mr.K.Samidurai
for R1 and R2.
Mr.Mathavan for R3.
This Criminal Revision Case is focussed to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2006 dated 27.06.2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision Case would run thus:
The second respondent, Sulochana wife of Palanivel, the first respondent herein, filed a complaint in S.T.C.No.363 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The third respondent herein filed another complaint in S.T.C.No.3603 of 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Senkottai. In both those cases, the petitioner herein namely, Baskar is the accused.
3. The gist and kernel of the contention of the petitioner is that Palanivel, the first respondent herein is the root cause for generating two cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in such a case, the petitioner who is the accused in both the cases, would adduce common evidence and if both those cases are tried separately, it would lead to conflict of decisions and the petitioner also would be produced in his defence.
4. Per contra, contradicting and gainsaying the allegations/averments, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the third respondent in unison and in one voice would argue that the preponderance of probabilities and the balance of convenience are not in favour of the petitioner for the reason that even though the petitioner has come forward with a plea as early as on 01.03.2003, that the impugned blank cheques were stolen away by Palanivel and by way of those two cheques, he had chosen to file private complaints, yet only on 23.10.2005 and that too after receiving notice of the complaint, the petitioner has chosen to take steps to club both the cases. As such, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that there is no bona fide in this petition.
5. Without deciding on merits the allegations/counter allegations, I could see some prima facie balance of convenience on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 rather than seeing such balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was not prompt in setting the law in motion as it is obvious that even though on 01.03.2003 itself, those two cheques were stolen away, he had kept quiet and he had not raised even his little finger. Prima facie and ex facie, on his side, no evidence was shown. Hence, in such a case, I do not see any merit in the contention of the petitioner that both those cases should be tried before one and the same Court.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Sessions Judge before whom T.O.P was filed, simply passed orders without hearing the petitioner.
7. Be that as it may, now then, the matter has been dealt with by this Court and that there is no merit in the T.O.P filed before the Sessions Judge and I could not find any reason to interfere with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that he filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudhram as against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and it is pending and for that case, all parties should appear before the said Court and in such a case, the transfer of that case in S.T.C.No.3603 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Senkottai, to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudhram, would in any way be detrimental to anyone. Such an argument could not be countenanced and upheld for the reasons already adverted to supra. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 are also dismissed. rsb
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.