S.Ravindiran v. Sivaswamy

O R D E R This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in STC No.82 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No.1, Nagercoil.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:- The respondent herein filed a private complaint with the following allegations:- He is the Power of Attorney Holder of one Murugan, who is the Proprietor of SM Engineering Works, Nagercoil, which is engaged in constructing fishing boats; the Power of Attorney is working in the above said concern as a Manager. During the course of the above said business, the accused alleged to have placed orders for construction of two fishing boats at the rate of Rs.67,72,500/- totalling Rs.1,35,45,000/- including GST. That request was complied by the complainant and possession was also handed over to the accused, on 25/09/2021. The entire contractual amount was to be paid and take possession. The above said amount was settled by way of cheques. The remaining amount was Rs.6,45,000/- as on 25/09/2021. When that amount was demanded, he issued a cheque, which was post-dated as 10/10/2021 on the date of the delivery. The above said amount is meant for payment of GST. It was presented for payment, on 11/10/2021 before the Karur Vysya Bank, Nagercoil. It was dishonoured, on 12/10/2021. So, he has issued a statutory notice, which was also received by the accused, but gave reply containing false particulars and facts. Before presentation of the cheque, the accused sent a letter to the complainant, on 07/10/2021 stating false allegations. It was also suitably replied, on 09/10/2021. Again, another reply was given by the accused, on 09/10/2021 containing false allegations. Thereafter only, the above said was presented for payment.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed solely on the ground that a portion of the consideration for the business transaction failed due to supply of defective boats; and the petitioner would rely upon to substantiate his plea, the letters addressed to the petitioner by the Fishery Department Officials, Chennai.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Failure of consideration is an issue that has been raised by the petitioner in this petition. Whether failure of consideration can be a matter for consideration, while exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, is now more or less well settled and the accused must come forward with materials, which are of sterling quality or on the basis of the admitted documents.

6.Now, as mentioned above, the case of the petitioner is that against the promise that was made by the respondent, imperfect or defective construction of the boats was made by the respondent, which was found unworthy of sailing during fishing activity now. The letter, dated 12/10/2021 is relied by the petitioner which reads as follows:- bghUs;' fly; kPd;tsk; - brd;id kPd;gpo JiwKfk; - kPd;gpo tpirg;glF g[jpajhf gjpt[ bra;J ju nfhhpaJ - bjhlh;ghf. ghh;it' jpU.R.utPe;jud;> j/bg. Re;jh;uh$;> mth;fspd; tpz;zg;g ehs;

12.10.2021. ghh;itapy;

fhDk;

jq;fspd; foj;jjpy; SM

Engineering

Works epWtdj;jpd; K:yk; ,Uk;ghyhd g[jpa tpirg;glF fl;o te;jjhft[k; mtw;iw kPd; Jiwapy; gjpt[ bra;J tHq;fpl nfl;L bfhs;sg;gl;lJ.

,jid

bjhlhe;J nkw;fz;l Invoice No.21SMEC001, ehs;

25.09.2021 vd;w gl;oaypd; tptuj;jpYs;s tpirg;glif Ma;t[ bra;jnghJ 1983 jkpH;ehL fly; rhh; kPd;gpo xGq;Fg;gLj;Jk; rl;lk;

kw;Wk;

tpjpfs;

2020-y; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s msit tpl rw;W Fiwe;j mst[ ePsk; mjpfkhf cs;sjhf neuo Ma;tpy; bjhpatUfpwJ. nkYk; jq;fs; glF flypy; kPd;gpog;gpy; nghJ 1983 jkpH;ehL fly; rhh; kPd;gpo xGHq;FgLj;Jk; rl;lk;

kw;Wk;

tpjpfs;>

2020-y; bjhptpf;fgl;Ls;s

,Q;rpd;

ghpjpwid fhl;oYk; ntfkhf bry;tjhf g[fhh; bjhiyngrp thapyhf bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mifahy; 1983 jkpH;ehL fly; rhh; kPd;gpo xGq;FgLj;Jk; rl;lk; kw;Wk; tpjpfs;>

2020-d;

fPH;

jq;fspd; tpirg;glfpid gjpt[ bra;tjw;nfw;wthW khw;wk;

bra;J

Ma;tpw;F

cl;gLj;jp gjpt[ bra;jpl cjtpLkhW jq;fis md;g[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.

7.Reading of the above said letter shows that the above said boats do not confirm to the specification stipulated by the Fisheries Department. What was the order placed by the petitioner and what was the specification is a matter for consideration during the course of trial. Such an exercise cannot be taken by this court. Whether there was failure of performance of the contractual obligation by the respondent cannot be a matter for consideration by this court. More-over, the above said document must also be proved properly.

8.As mentioned earlier, the details of the specification during the proposal and acceptance are not available. All these matters are for consideration by the trial court. So, I am of the considered view that this is not a fittest case the exercise the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.

9.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 07/06/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,

1.The Judicial Magistrate (FTC) No.1, Nagercoil. G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.19606 of 2022 07/06/2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 07/06/2023 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.19606 of 2022 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.14341 and 13422 of 2022 S.Ravindiran : Petitioner/Accused Vs. Sivaswamy : Respondent/Complainant PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in connection with private complaint in STC No.82 of 2022, dated 16/12/2021 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) No.1, Nagercoil and quash the same and pass further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Elango For Respondent : Mr.R.Murugan