RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed as against the order of dismissal dated 24.09.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Cuddalore in Crl.M.P. No. 1133 of 2008 in C.C. No. 132 of 2008 in dismissing the petition filed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the alleged offence. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very complaint itself is belated. Even as per the complaint, the petitioner is alleged to have involved in the money transaction with the defacto complainant during the period 1994-99. According to the petitioner, the blank cheques, pro-notes and other documents which were given by the complainant towards the security for the loan obtained by him were not returned only due to the unnatural death of his daughter-in-law since it was kept in some other place. As the same were not returned, the complainant for the first time gave a complaint on 05.08.2007 and based on this, the FIR was filed. Thereafter, the matter was closed and the action against the petitioner was dropped. Once again, the complainant has preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police alleging that the petitioner has collected the exorbitant interest for the loan availed by the complainant. On that basis, the Superintendent of Police, without even issuing notice to the petitioner, straightaway ordered further investigation and a referred charge sheet also came to be filed. Thereafter, the case was transferred to District Crime Branch for further investigation, which re-investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet before the Court for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act. Challenging the same, the petitioner originally filed petition under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. subsequently, he filed another petition to modify the said petition into one under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the offences alleged; however the same was dismissed by the Court below without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the legal notice issued by the complainant is only for the return of 12 blank cheque leaves and 12 pro-notes given by him as a security for the loan availed by him. It is the further contention of the petitioner that no dates also have been mentioned in the complaint between the period from 1994-99 for receiving the loan as well as its repayment. Accordingly, he would submit that the very complaint given itself is wrong and the further investigation conducted by the District Crime Branch is also not correct. Therefore, he would pray for setting aside the order passed by the Court below and to discharge him from the alleged offence.