The Supreme Court on 15th May,2024, Wednesday had given its judgment on the case of C. SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ AND OTHERS versus THE SUPREINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS.
In the case the Supreme Court had explained in its judgment that how this civil dispute has been given a color of a criminal issue and how the complainant has misused the provisions for his own benefit. The Supreme Court said that “Thus, we are of the firm view that the necessary ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 406 and Section 420 IPC are not made out against the accused appellants from the admitted allegations set out in the complaint and the charge sheet. It cannot be doubted that a dispute which is purely civil in nature has been given a color of criminal prosecution alleging fraud and criminal breach of trust by misusing the tool of criminal law.”
In the case the Appellant who is the accused and original petitioner had appealed before the Apex court of the country under article 136 of the Constitution of India which is about the Special Leave Petition( SLP).
The instant appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated 23rd April, 2018 passed by learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dismissing the CRL.O.P.(MD) No. 3846 of 2013 preferred by the appellants herein seeking quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 250 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti for offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120B, Section 294(b), Section 506(ii) read with Section 1of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the‘IPC.
The respondent who is also the complainant earlier had lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti alleging inter alia that he was having a qualification of M.Sc., MD Graduate. He was appointed as aGovernment teacher on 8th October, 2007. Before being appointed as a Government teacher, the complainant was doing real estate business for earning his livelihood for past 16 years.
As the complainant was engaged in the real estate business for a long time and while being engaged in that business, the complainant had an interaction with the accused appellant Kedambur Jeyaraj and his wife. As the complainant had always believed that trusting the partner is very much required in any kind of business. So, the appellant had convinced and had taken undue advantage of the trusting nature of the complainant, the accused persons induced him to join their real estate business claiming that they had strong political connections. The accused allured and induced the complainant to enter into land deals with the intention to defraud the complainant right at the inception of the transactions.
The complainant was also fraudulently induced to believe that out of the chunks of lands so purchased, smaller plots would be carved out and sold to different persons which would frequently require physical presence of the seller and since the complainant 4 was a teacher, he would face inconvenience if the land parcels were to be registered in his name. In this manner, the complainant was not allowed to get the purchased properties registered in his name despite he making the investments. The complainant was given assurances that the plots would be sold for huge profit in a very short duration and he would be given his share.
It was further alleged that before the complainant had come in touch with the accused, he and his brother-in-law Chandrasekar, S/o Krishnasamy Naicker had entered into an agreement for sale with A. Sairam in respect of a chunk of land at Allampatti village, admeasuring 8 acres, but the sale could not be finalized because a suit was pending in the District Court, Tuticorin in respect of the said land. In the meantime, the complainant was appointed as a teacher. The suit pending before the District Court, Tuticorin was disposed in favour of A. Sairam.
The accused by giving fraud Allurements to the complainant had convinced him to enter into a sale deed and got registered a sale deed in their name as Document No. 1839 of 2008 dated 27th February, 2008 on the file of Sub 5Registrar Office, Kovilpatti in respect of some plots of land situated in the Allampatti village of total area 7.618 acres. The accused invested a sum of Rs. 1,01,47,800 whereas the accused had paid a lesser amount as compare to the complainant. The complainant, purchased the said parcel of land from A. Sairam for a total consideration of Rs. 3,08,33,600/-. However, as per the complainant, the accused never gave him the plots equivalent to the investment made by him and thereby, committed fraud and breach of trust.
The accused made the complainant believe that the business of real estate is generally carried on by word of mouth and trust. However, at a later point of time, the accused started indulging in criminal breach of trust with the ulterior motive of cheating the complainant.
The complainant was very much frustrated with these continued criminal activities as claimed by him( complainant). So, the complainant went to the local police station where he had lodged a complaint against the accused but no action was taken. So, the complainant went to the Madras High Court Madurai Bench and as per the direction of the High Court, he submitted a fresh complaint to the District Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin, but still the FIR was not registered. Ultimately, the complainant was compelled to file a complaint in the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate with a prayer to forward the same to the police under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
For the Final judgment. The appellant who is the accused has=d approached to the Apex court of the country where the two judge bench of the Supreme Court comprised of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta had said in their judgment and in the judgment the Court had claimed serious allegations on the complainant which are :-
- The complainant alleged that the accused abused him by using profane language. Section 294(b) IPC would clearly not apply to such an act. Apart from a bald allegation made by the complainant that A-1 abused him and intimidated him on 28th July, 2010, there is no material which can show that the accused indulged in criminal intimidation of the complainant so as to justify invocation of the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of the IPC.
- We have to be conscious of the fact that the complainant has tried to misuse the tool of criminal law by filing the patently 24 frivolous FIR dated 6th March, 2011, wherein the allegation is levelled regarding the so-called incident of criminal intimidation dated 28th July, 2010. The said allegation otherwise is also belied for the reason that in the FIR, the complainant states that he filed a complaint dated 29th July, 2010 in Kovilpatti West Police Station, but the RTI reply from the said police station clearly states that no such complaint was ever received.
- Thus, we are persuaded to accept the contention of learned counsel for the accused appellants to hold that the criminal prosecution instituted against the accused appellants in pursuance of the totally frivolous FIR tantamounts to sheer abuse of the process of law.
- Consequently, the impugned order whereby the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the Criminal Case No. 250 of 2012 and FIR No. 305 of 2011 was dismissed, does not stand to scrutiny, thus, the same is hereby quashed and set aside.
- As a result, all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellants in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 10th August, 2011 are also quashed.
CASE NAME – SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ AND OTHERS versus THE SUPREINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS
NAME- DAKSH SRIVASTAVA, G.D. GOENKA UNIVERSITY, COURSE- B.A.LLB, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments