RANGASWAMI REDDIAR Vs. GUNNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the plaintiff in a Civil suit against whom an order has been passed by the learned District Munsif, Kulitalai, directing the filing of a complaint under Section 476 Crl. P. C. For an enquiry into offences under Ss. 193 and 209 I. P. C. Against the plaintiff on motion made by the defendant. The learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, on appeal, has confirmed the order.

(2.) THE facts leading to the proceedings may be set out briefly. The petitioner herein, the plaintiff, against whom the complaint is to be laid, is the deceased husband's brother of the respondent herein, the defendant in the suit which the petitioner laid. The suit, O. S. 588 of 1959, on the file of the District Munsif's court, Kulatalai was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2000 due on a promissory note dated 1-1-1958. It was the case of the plaintiff that this amount was advanced by him to the defendant for the purchase of a land by her for Rs. 3000, Ex. B. 1 being the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, he had a sum of Rs. 1000 belonging to his brother with him. This suit was contested by the defendant and she put forward a plea that she did not execute any promissory note for Rs. 2000, but that she borrowed only a sum of Rs. 700 on a promissory note in June 1958. She pleaded that a sum of Rs. 500 was paid by her towards the said debt, and that the present plaintiff obtained her thumb impression for the said payment on the alleged promissory not for Rs. 2000 falsely representing that the said endorsement was taken on the promissory note for Rs. 700. While giving evidence in the suit, the plaintiff, in the chief-examination itself, stated that the defendant had not executed a promissory note for Rs. 700 and had not repaid Rs. 500 towards the same. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 1-7-1960. On 21-10-1960, the plaintiff filed another suit, O. S. 560 of 1960, against the defendant for the amounts due on a promissory note for Rs. 700 dated 5-1-1958. On 6-2-1961, the plaintiff's advocate withdrew the suit, O. S. 560 of 1960 endorsing on the plaint that it was not pressed. It is after the withdrawal of the suit, on 3-3-1961, the defendant filed O. P. 5 of 1961 for action under S. 476 Crl. P. C. and prosecution of the plaintiff for offences under Ss. 193 I. P. C. (Giving false evidence) 209 I. P. C. (Dishonestly making false claim) and 210 I. P. C. (fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due ). The learned District Munsif himself held that no case had been made out for sanction to prosecute the plaintiff for an offence under s. 210 and as set out in the beginning, complaint was directed to be filed for offences under Ss. 193 and 209 I. P. C.

(3.) MR. K. S. Desikan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner urges three points in this revision. The first contention is that S. 479-A Crl. P. C. is a bar to the present proceedings under S. 476 Crl. P. C. It is next contended that there has been no proper appraisal whether it was expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made in this case, the approach in this behalf being erroneous. Thirdly it is contended that there is absolutely no ground whatsoever for proceedings under Section 209 I. P. C.