S PERIYASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent herein / defacto complainant had levelled a case against the revision petitioner herein / accused and three others before the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai. The said case was forwarded to the C.B.C.I.D. for enquiry. The C.B.C.I.D. Wing had registered a Criminal Case in Crime No.1 of 2008 for the offence alleged under Section 120(B), 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 506(1) IPC. On the basis of the F.I.R., investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police and he had come to the conclusion that the case was unproven, therefore, the complaint was closed as "MISTAKE OF FACT". The said report was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, wherein the defacto complainant, viz., T.T.Paranthaman had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1024 of 2010 and he had stated in his petition that he is the Managing Partner of "M/s.Paranthaman Exporters" and his father, his wife are partners in the said Export firm. At this juncture, the accused viz., S.Periyasamy had approached the defacto complainant's Export firm to start a business at Gulf of Oman. As per the offer of the accused, the defacto complainant had condescended to start such a business, accordingly, the business was started in the name and style of "M/s.Paranthaman Overseas Drillers Pvt. Ltd. India". In the said firm 50% of the share was allotted to the defacto complainant and the other 50% of the share was allotted to the revision petitioner herein / accused viz., Periyasamy and three others. Further, the firm had decided to start a Drilling contract works at the Gulf of Oman and the same got started in the year 2004 in which, the defacto complainant / Mr.Paranthaman and his father had invested a sum of Rs.1 Crore and started the operations in the name and style of "M/s.Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C. Oman". In the said company, 70% of the share was allotted to the M/s.Paranthaman firm and 30% of the share had been allotted to the revision petitioner herein/accused, as per the Gulf of Oman Trading Rules and Regulations and in this way, the business progressed with the revision petitioner in overall charge. In the said Company, two persons were appointed as Senior Manager, viz., Mr.V.Rajendran and Mr.V.Vinayagam. In the process of business transactions, the revision petitioner herein had purchased materials for a sum of Rs.5 Crores and 86 Lakhs and operated the business, however, the said expenditure as mentioned above was not paid to the defacto complainant, in this manner, the defacto complainant had been cheated by the revision petitioner - Mr.Periyasamy.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the revision petitioner has started a new organization viz., "M/s.Power Tech Engineering Services Company, L.L.C" on 30.07.2006. The revision petitioner had created a document and impersonated by signing for the defacto complainant's father viz., Mr.Thangaraj and obtained attestation from the Officers at Muscat on 03.11.2008. Further, on 19.02.2007, "M/s.Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C." firm had agreed to sell off all materials to "M/s.Power Tech Engineering Services Company, L.L.C" and accordingly, passed a resolution, in this manner, the revision petitioner/accused had created a forged document with the intent to cheat a sum of Rs.5,86,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores and Eighty Six Lakhs only) and invested an amount a sum of Rs.3,25,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores and Twenty Five Lakhs only). Further, the revision petitioner had created forged documents in the name of the defacto complainant's father-Thangaraj on 30.07.2006, 19.02.2007, 10.08.2007 and 04.09.2007 respectively. On the strength of such created forged documents, he transfered the firm of "Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C.," to the firm of "Power Tech Engineering Services Company L.L.C."

(3.) ON the said averments of both parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode had framed an issue, i.e., "Whether the Crime No.1 of 2008 on the file of CBCID, Namakkal could be sent for re-enquiry or not?" In this case, the investigation officer had conducted an enquiry after verifying the records of "M/s.Paranthaman Overseas Drillers Private Limited" and also collected statement from the witnesses under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. As per the complaint, the verification of signatures had not been adhered to in a through manner. The learned Judicial Magistrate had further observed that on the basis of the statement collected from the witnesses under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C., the Investigation Officer had closed the complaint as a "MISTAKE OF FACT". This enquiry is short of efficiency. The learned Judicial Magistrate further observed that the Investigation Officer had not received some documents and minutes book in order to find out the transfer of the firm and a verification of the signatures of the defacto complainant's father, besides the disputed signature should be sent to the Forensic Department for expert opinion, this was not adhered to, hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered for re-enquiry in order to determine the signatures of the father of the defacto complainant in connection with the relevant documents via the competent examination by the Forensic Department. The learned Judicial Magistrate further directed to conduct an enquiry with the witnesses by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D. within a period of two months. Accordingly, it was ordered.