C KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks a direction to the respondent to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.11.2010.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred a complaint with the respondent on 30.11.2010, informing that he was the Manager of a concern by name M/s. Jack Communications and that the accused had issued a cheque in favour of the Managing Director of the Company in a sum of Rs.5 crores, which was due from him under business transactions. As security he had handed over title deeds to property. THE cheque which was dated 15.10.2010, had been returned unpaid on 22.10.2010. THE accused came along with some unknown persons on 30.11.2010 and informed that he was most sorry for the return of cheque 'unpaid' and that if the document of title was shown to him he immediately would arrange for payment of the sum due. Taken in by the polite conduct of the accused, the complainant took the accused to his room and showed him the concerned documents, with the concurrence of the Managing Director. When the accused was going through the documents one Vasu came to the complainant's room. THE complainant spoke to the said Vasu for some time and went to the bathroom and on coming back, found the accused missing. On enquiry, the said Vasu informed that such persons had just gone down. Immediately, the complainant told Vasu that the accused were doing away with the documents and they were to be stopped. When Vasu intercepted the car of accused Velayutham and asked for the document, some unidentifiable persons showed a knife, informed that they would murder him, pushed him down and went away. THE said complaint was entered into the Community Service Register of the respondent under No.247 of 2010 only on 02.12.2010. According to the petitioner, no action whatsoever was taken by the respondent and hence, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for registration of a case.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the intervenor/ accused submitted that in the event of non-registration of a case on the complaint, the petitioner could not move this Court for a direction therefor under section 482 CrPC and the proper remedy for the petitioner would be to follow the procedure provided in the Cr.P.C. He may make a representation to a senior police official, seek a Magisterial direction for investigation or prefer a private complaint as provided for, under Sections 154(2), 156 (3) and 200 Cr.P.C. LEARNED senior counsel also raised a contention that since no case has been registered on the complaint of the petitioner, the intervener cannot be treated as an accused and on such reasoning also the intervener would have the right to intervene. This contention readily was repulsed by senior counsel for petitioner stating that if that be so, no Court upon receipt of the complaint could direct investigation upon 156(3) Cr.P.C without hearing the person complained against. As some documents were referred to, by learned senior counsel for the intervenor/accused, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defence documents presently could not be considered.