Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1952 (MAD)

Mohammed Bashir v. Mahesh Menon

2016-06-21

P.DEVADASS

body2016
ORDER : As against the refusal of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, to forward his complaint, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant has directed this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that taking the allegations as such in the complaint, as it discloses cognizable offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 506(1) I.P.C., the refusal of the learned Judicial Magistrate to forward the complaint is not in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that even a cursory reading of the allegations in the complaint would show that it is a case of alleged breach of contract. It looks like a plaint in a civil case. It is out and out a civil case. In such circumstances, as it does not disclose any cognizable offence, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the private respondents would also submit that it is basic for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C., that at the very inception there must be presence of dishonest intention. Every transaction will not amount to cheating. There must be an element of cheating. The offence of cheating also requires mens rea (guilty mind). In the facts and circumstances, the complaint do not disclose any cognizable offence. 5. In this connection, the learned counsel for the private respondents would also cite ARCI v. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. [ (2016) 1 SCC 348 ]. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and also the materials on record and the decision cited. 7. A criminal case comes to a Court from various routes. One of the route is through F.I.R., registered by police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. It is 'Police Case'. An another way is through a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is 'Private Case'. But, sometimes, a private case also will become a police case. On a private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., when the Magistrate directs the police to take action under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the police is bound to register F.I.R., the private case becomes a police case. 8. But, sometimes, a private case also will become a police case. On a private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., when the Magistrate directs the police to take action under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the police is bound to register F.I.R., the private case becomes a police case. 8. On receipt of the private complaint, the learned Magistrate can follow anyone of the modes provided under Cr.P.C. There is no provision under Cr.P.C., to file a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Provision is there only to file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. When such a complaint is filed, the learned Magistrate can examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath and if the Magistrate takes cognizance, he will issue summons to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C., otherwise he will dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. An another mode is to examine the complainant, call for report from the police, consider all and pass orders either under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. This is provided in Section 202 Cr.P.C. One more mode is that without examining the complainant on oath, without calling for report from the police, the learned Magistrate can forward the complaint to police for investigation. This is provided in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. But, there is a marked difference under this mode. No complainant can direct the Court to adopt any particular mode. 9. Even under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before forwarding the complaint, the learned Magistrate must satisfy himself as to whether the complainant allegations discloses cognizable offence. At this stage, the learned Magistrate need not write an elaborate order. The learned Magistrate must go through the allegations in the written complaint and also peruse the documents, if any, submitted along with the complaint, if he finds that the allegations discloses cognizable offences, he can forward the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to police, otherwise he can dismiss the complaint, under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 10. Now, keeping the above principles in our mind, let us approach this case. 11. On reading the private complaint, it is seen that there was a transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5, with regard to the dealership of some ayurvedic medicine. The petitioner alleged that he could not push the consignment in the market because of the bottlenecks from the respondents 1 to 5. 11. On reading the private complaint, it is seen that there was a transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5, with regard to the dealership of some ayurvedic medicine. The petitioner alleged that he could not push the consignment in the market because of the bottlenecks from the respondents 1 to 5. He alleges that the respondents 1 to 5 have not acted upon the terms and conditions entered into at the time of dealership agreement. This is the sum and substance of the allegations in the complaint. 12. They do not disclose any cognizable offence. If at all it may be a case for breach of promise and it cannot be an offence. The complainant attempts to convert a civil case into a criminal case. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2016) 1 SCC 348 applies to this case. In the circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint. 13. Thus, this criminal revision fails and it is dismissed.