Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2279 (MAD)

Kalpana v. State of Tamil Nadu

2018-07-27

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

body2018
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.544 of 2016 in C.C.No.158 of 2015. 2. The revision petitioner herein, who is the first accused in C.C.No.158 of 2015 (Crime No.371 of 2014), has filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.544 of 2016 seeking to discharge her from the above case and the said petition was dismissed and hence, the above criminal revision case has been filed. 3. Originally, the second respondent herein/defacto-complainant had preferred a complaint before the first respondent police on 30.09.2013 informing that the first accused, a lady, by name Kalpana had conducted chit business, had induced the complainant and her family members to partake therein and thereby complainant had been swindled of a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs. On having no action thereupon, the second respondent moved a petition in Crl.O.P.No.27777 of 2013 before this Court, wherein, under orders dated 30.10.2013, this Court required the first respondent to enquire the complaint and if there be a cognizable offence, proceed further in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner herein/A.1 and the second accused are alleged to have collected money to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from the de facto complainant and others under the protest of running a chit business and the second accused was discharged from all the charges by an order passed by this Court dated 21.12.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.719 of 2015. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A.1 would contend that there is no prima facie material against this petitioner to frame charges and further, the co-accused has already been discharged from the case and the matter is of civil in nature. It is further contended that the trial Court, on consideration of the earlier order passed by this Court, has wrongly rejected the petition. 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that all the prosecution witnesses have given statements against the petitioner and the documents collected during the investigation have been filed along with the final report. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that all the prosecution witnesses have given statements against the petitioner and the documents collected during the investigation have been filed along with the final report. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. After going through the records, it is seen that pursuant to the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.27777 of 2013, dated 22.10.2013, the police have registered a case in Crime No.371 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC and after investigation, laid a final report which was taken on file as C.C.No.158 of 2015. The second accused in this case has already been discharged from the charges levelled against him by an order passed by this Court dated 21.12.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.719 of 2015 for the reasons contained therein which clearly shows that in the absence of any material against the second accused, he was discharged but that does not lend any support or credence to the case of the petitioner. 9. I have perused the statements of L.Ws.1 to 15 and perused the documents. 10. It is settled proposition of law that when the material placed before the Court is sufficient to frame charges against the accused, the trial Court should be justified in framing the charges against the accused, if the prosecution has shown some incriminating materials which have got the potential into the full fledged tree during the trial. The Court has to consider whether there is sufficient material for prosecuting the accused and not for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that it is not likely to lead to conviction. 11. After perusing the materials available on record and the statements of L.Ws.1 to 18 and after perusing the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and the documents, since there are sufficient materials to frame charges against the petitioner, I find no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court on the factual position. 12. In this view of the matter, this Criminal Revision case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.