MANOHARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to set aside the order of dismissal of discharge petition by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Usilampatti in Cr. M. P. No. 1918 of 2005 in C. C. No. 205 of 2004, dated 27. 7. 2006.

(2.) A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition as put forth by the petitioner's counsel, would run thus: the police registered the case in Cr. No. 46 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 420 I. P. C based on the complaint lodged by one lakshmanan on the alleged ground that there was money transaction between the first petitioner herein and the de facto complainant and in connection with that he signed a blank promissory note and handed it over to the first petitioner, whereas the first petitioner subsequently approached the de facto complainant by stating that the first petitioner had lost the earlier promissory note and he demanded a fresh one for which the de facto complainant responded positively after repaying the sum of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) which was borrowed, the first petitioner demanded back the promissory note and got back the second promissory note also; however, the first petitioner in collusion with the other petitioners, filled up the earlier promissory note which was allegedly claimed to have been lost by inserting the name of third petitioner, R. Sonaimuthu, and filed the suit in O. S. No. 83 of 2004 and prosecuting the matter. During the pendency of that case, this criminal case emerged. The said suit was decreed in favour of the third petitioner as against which appeal was filed by the de facto complainant which was also dismissed confirming the decree of the trial court. But, the trial Court, having decreed the suit in favour of the third petitioner, one of the accused in C. C. No. 205 of 2004, dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the dismissal of that application this revision has been filed. Meanwhile, the appellate court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. This revision is mainly based on the following inter alia grounds: