KRISHNA KUMAR SOOD Vs. SRINATH RAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.M.P. is filed to make an inquiry in the interest of justice, into the matter of deceptive introduction of a forged document, i.e. lease deed mentioned as Item No.1 in the typed set of papers, to get a favourable order in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010, call for the original records of C.C.No.439 of 2008 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and record a finding and direct any officer of the Court as this Court deems fit and proper to prefer a complaint before any competent authority or Court for the offences under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 463, 464, 465, 469, 470 and 471 IPC, as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that there was a private complaint against the respondent-Srinath Rajam for various offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC filed on 03.11.2008 for having collected a sum of Rs.71 lakhs from subtenants and misappropriating the said amount. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur took cognizance of the complaint and having satisfied that prima-face case is made out, assigned number to the complaint in C.C.No.439 of 2008 and issued summons on 08.12.2008 to the accused, calling upon him to face the trial and answer the charges against him. The accused has not appeared before the Court below, inspite of the issuance of summons and non-bailable warrant has been issued against him on 29.12.2008 and on appearance and filing a petition to recall the warrant, the same was recalled on 21.04.2009. Thereafter, a petition to quash the said complaint pending in C.C.No.439 of 2008, was filed by the respondent/accused before this Court on 19.02.2010 being Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010. This Court, by order dated 11.02.2016 passed in the said Crl.O.P., has quashed the said complaint in C.C.No.439 of 2008, having come to the conclusion that the documents produced discloses only civil transaction.

(3.) It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent has fabricated and tampered the forged documents with an intention to use the same as evidence in the Court. The respondent/accused, who is the Director of Sunco Machines Ltd., approached the petitioner to lease the property measuring 46,000 Sq.Ft. together with open space at developed Plot Nos.67, 68 and 72 at Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai to him for a period of ten years at the rate of Rs.2,79,600/- per month, with escalation of 5% per annum as rent, payable on or before 7th of every English calendar month. It is also stated that there is a clause to sub-let the property and to pay the rent for the same after collecting the rent from the sub-tenants as well. The agreement was reduced into writing in non-judicial stamp papers and a set of four stamp papers at the face value of Rs.10/- each were brought from one Mr.KRV Rajesh Kumar in Serial Nos.7826, 7827, 7828 and 7829 on 06.01.2004 in the name of the accused and one set of agreement in the said Nos.7826 and 7827 was retained by the petitioner and the other set containing Nos.7828 and 7829 was given to the respondent.