Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2560 (MAD)

Mridhul Bhaskhar v. M. V. Viswanathan

2025-06-05

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

body2025
ORDER : D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Mahe in Crl.M.P.No.2182 of 2014, by which, the complaint filed by the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.2182 of 2024 under Sections 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 405 r/w 34 of I.P.C, was dismissed. 2. Heard Mr.D.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.H.Shabeer Ali, learned Counsel for the second respondent. 3. Mr.D.Senthil Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the complaint that was filed, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, and the additional typed set of papers, would submit that in this case, it can be seen that the petitioner has made out a clear case that the petitioner's father ordered the purchase of Nilambur teak from the Forest Department via Challan, dated 22.05.2003, and that it was brought by the accused persons who were overseeing the construction in their native. After bringing the teak, and without utilizing it for the construction, it was misappropriated and used for the purposes of the second respondent, O.Pradeep Kumar. In turn, the accused obtained low-quality teak from a timber merchant who issued a legal notice for the outstanding balance two years after the housewarming ceremony in 2010, upon which, the petitioner and his father discovered that fraud had been perpetrated, leading to the filing of the complaint. 4. The offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. are clearly established based on the allegations presented in the complaint. The sole reason the Trial Court dismissed it because the petitioner lacked personal knowledge. However, upon reviewing the complaint itself, it becomes evident that the petitioner was aware of the events, and after his father's death, he is bringing the offences committed to the Court's attention. There should be no bar to this. The reasoning provided by the Trial Court is untenable. This matter is not civil in nature but represents a clear case of misappropriation and cheating by both respondents. Even though the first respondent has since passed away during this Revision Case, the complaint remains valid against the second respondent, O.Pradeep Kumar. Therefore, this Court should overturn the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahe, and direct that the offences be filed by issuing summons. 5. Even though the first respondent has since passed away during this Revision Case, the complaint remains valid against the second respondent, O.Pradeep Kumar. Therefore, this Court should overturn the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahe, and direct that the offences be filed by issuing summons. 5. Per contra, Mr.H.Shabeer Ali, the learned Counsel for the second respondent, submits that even the allegations of entrustment and overseeing the construction are directed only against the first accused, M.V.Viswanathan, who has since died. There is no proof that the second respondent has utilized the timber of the petitioner for the construction of his house. According to the legal notice, the second respondent joined the first respondent merely to bring the logs he purchased for the construction of his house. The details regarding the demand for amounts and the amounts due from the petitioner to the second respondent are provided in the reply notice. Therefore, since the entire transaction between the parties is a disputed civil matter, and there is no evidence of the logs being entrusted to the second respondent, especially, since all logs were taken to the sawmill to be cut according to requirements, with some logs deemed unsuitable and subsequently, purchased from the timber merchant, it should be noted that these events occurred long before the death of the petitioner's father, K.V.Bhaskaran, yet, the petitioner filed the complaint in the year 2014. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the complaint. 6. I have reviewed the rival submissions made by both sides and examined the material records of the case. 7. Firstly, it can be seen that the logs were purchased on 22.05.2003, and subsequently, the construction was completed in the year 2008. The complaint was filed in the year 2014. In the interim, it is mentioned that the petitioner's father, K.V.Bhaskaran, who was unwell, passed away, and thereafter, the complaint was filed. Even though the delay is explained, I also consider the following facts:- (i) The primary allegations are made against the first respondent, M.V.Viswanathan, who is said to be a relative of the petitioner and his father, K.V.Bhaskaran, who was overseeing the construction work. Even though the delay is explained, I also consider the following facts:- (i) The primary allegations are made against the first respondent, M.V.Viswanathan, who is said to be a relative of the petitioner and his father, K.V.Bhaskaran, who was overseeing the construction work. Even the entrustment of the challan was made only to the said M.V.Viswanathan, who has since passed away due to the delay; (ii) When allegations arise regarding the misappropriation of logs, particularly in cases where the parties claim that the Forest Department sells wooden logs that are to be cut in the sawmill to meet the parties' construction needs, and acknowledging that these logs were brought to the sawmill, it is disputed between the parties that while the logs are being cut into appropriate pieces, a necessity arose concerning the needs. At this distant point in time, taking the complaint on file to prove that the Nilambur wood brought by the petitioner was actually used by the second respondent, in collusion with the first respondent, M.V.Viswanathan, and misappropriated, would be a futile exercise. 8. In view thereof, due to the sheer passage of time and the significant delay in filing the complaint itself in the year 2014, I believe that at this distant point, it may not be appropriate for this Court to set aside the order of the Trial Court, dated 24.09.2014, by which, the complaint was rejected. 9. In light of this, finding no merits, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.