Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3370 (MAD)

Jagannathan v. N. Palanisamy

2014-09-16

K.B.K.VASUKI

body2014
Judgment 1. The present petition is filed by A1 to quash the proceedings in CC.No.261/2012, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, arising out the private complaint filed by the respondent herein, against the petitioner and one R.Kandasamy, arraying them as A1 and A2 for the offences under sections 177, 182, 193, 500 and 109 IPC. 2. The circumstances under which the present complaint came to be filed, are as follows: The petitioner is the Director of one Sampoornalakshmi Spinning Mills and Sri Jagam Spinning Mills, Namakkal. The respondent/complainant is working in the said spinning Mills. While so, A2 Kandasamy gave a complaint against the respondent herein and his wife and the same was registered as Nallur Police Station, FIR in Cr.No.11/2012 for the offences under section 506(i) IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003. The complaint was investigated into and was referred as false complaint. In view of the same, the present private complaint came to be filed by the respondent herein, against the petitioner/A1 and the defacto complainant in the earlier complaint in Cr.No.11/2012, as if the petitioner/A1 instigated and abetted the second accused to give a false complaint in Nallur Police Station and in pursuance of the same, the respondent herein obtained conditional anticipatory bail, which spoiled his reputation in the eyes of others. The private complaint further proceeds to say that the address of A2 herein, who was the complainant in the earlier complaint in Cr.No.11/2012 was falsely given as Sullipalayam Village, Vilankattupudur, Paramathi Vellore Taluk, Namakkal District, which is the address of A1, who is the present petitioner and the address was given so only at the instigation of the present petitioner. Thus, A1 and A2 abetted each other in giving false complaint against the respondent herein. The complainant, along with the private complaint, appended list of witnesses and list of documents, which are according to the complainant/respondent, in support of the allegations raised in the private complaint. 3. The private complaint is sought to be quashed against the petitioner/A1 on the ground that he is falsely implicated in the complaint only in order to harass the petitioner/A1 and as a counter blast to the complaint in Cr.No.11/2012 given by A2 against the respondent herein for the alleged act of misappropriation of funds. 3. The private complaint is sought to be quashed against the petitioner/A1 on the ground that he is falsely implicated in the complaint only in order to harass the petitioner/A1 and as a counter blast to the complaint in Cr.No.11/2012 given by A2 against the respondent herein for the alleged act of misappropriation of funds. It is also sought to be explained that as the defacto complainant in the earlier complaint, who is A2 in the present complaint, was his lessee, and was doing cultivation in his land, the petitioner's address was given as that of the complainant's address in the earlier complaint in Cr.No.11/2012. It is contended herein that there is no specific or substantial allegation for any act of abetment against the petitioner herein, so as to attract the offence under sections 107 and 108 IPC and taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process are in total non-application of mind and are liable to be set aside. 4. Whereas, the relief sought for herein is seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent by contending that there are sufficient grounds available to make out prima facie case against the accused and such person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial and any defence available to the accused may be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and the proceedings cannot be nullified at threshold. The learned counsel for the respondent, in support of his contention, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 (S.W.Palanitkar and others v. State of Bihar and another). 5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 6. The facts that the petitioner is the Director of Sampoornalakshmi Spinning Mills and Sri Jagam Spinning Mills, Namakkal and the respondent was his employee and he stopped coming to job on 26.3.2010 and the complaint in Cr.No.11/2012 was lodged by A2 who was the lessee under A1 in the present FIR against the respondent herein, for an act of misappropriation of funds and the same was closed as mistake of fact, are not denied. The earlier complaint in Cr.No.11/2012 was registered against the respondent herein and his wife for the offences under section 506(i) IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003 and the address given in the complaint is the address of the petitioner herein and the respondent and his wife obtained conditional anticipatory bail and the respondent had to appear before the concerned police station, in compliance with the conditional order and the complaint was, after investigation closed as false. 7. The present complaint, which is sought to be quashed herein, came to be filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner and R.Kandasamy, who is the defacto complainant in the earlier complaint in Cr.No.11/2012, for giving false complaint against the respondent and his wife. The respondent has in the present complaint raised serious allegations about the previous enmity between the petitioner and the respondent and the business relationship between A1 and A2 and the circumstances under which earlier complaint was given by A2 at the instigation of A1 in order to tarnish the image of the respondent and to harass the respondent herein. The respondent has in his complaint, raised necessary averments to constitute an act of abetment by A1 to A2 in lodging the complaint against the respondent herein and as to how it lowered his image in the eyes of public. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of this court to the representation given by the respondent to the State Human Rights commission about the harassment of the respondent by the police and the public notice published in the newspaper on behalf of the respondent by his advocate as if Jagannathan has been attempting to give false complaint through his associate against the respondent and his family members. That being so, there is prima facie material to infer an act of abetment on the part of the petitioner/A1 in instigating A2 for lodging the complaint against the respondent herein. As the allegations made in the complaint do prima facie made out a case against the petitioner and A2, no ground is made out to quash the same at the initial stage and this court deems it fit to allow the proceedings to continue against the petitioner and A2. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.