D. MARIMUTHU Vs. S. CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a third party to the proceedings, who is an authorised representative of M/s. Mepco Industries Limited. By means of a resolution passed in the Board Meeting on 30.06.2006, he was authorised to take all necessary legal steps for filing petition in the Court seeking action for the criminal offences committed by one Chandrasekaran, Proprietor, Profile Industrial Diamond Tools, Uttukuli, Erode District, who had filed false documents in the Court and misled the Court to obtain a judgment in his favour. He filed an application in I.A.No.860 of 2006 in O.S.No.198 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, praying the Court to make a preliminary enquiry, record a finding regarding the offence committed by the respondent, make a complaint in writing and send it to the nearest Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction to deal with the respondent according to law.

(2.) IN the affidavit, he has alleged that Exs.B.14 to B.17 were copies of the letters addressed to the plaintiff and since P.W.2 admitted them while he was in the witness box, they were marked. While the matter stood thus, O.S.No.198 of 2002 was dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2005 was preferred before the District Court, Madurai, in which a petition in I.A.No.8 of 2006 for the identical relief under Section 193, Cr.P.C. for registration of criminal case against the defendant was sought for and the said petition was heard along with the appeal and the same was disposed of by the learned District Judge. Hence, the petition has to be allowed.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the respondent, the averments in the affidavits were denied in detail. It is stated that it was judiciously adjudicated by the District Court and the claim of the petitioner company was negatived and the application was dismissed with costs. Once the trial Court decided the matter on merits and the appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and when the matter is pending before the High Court, the present application is not maintainable before the trial Court and that the petitioner's company did not choose to question the order of the District Court. It is further alleged that misunderstandings arose between this respondent and the petitioner company and the dealings were snapped. Enraged on that, the petitioner company manipulated accounts, created a false claim and foisted the original suit and the trial Court found that the claim of the petitioner company is wrong and the suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the company was also dismissed. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner company raised the same issue before the appellate Court in I.A.No.8 of 2006 and the District Court found the allegation of the petitioner company was a wrong one and observed that the documents, subsequently produced by the petitioner company are suspicious and thus dismissed the claim of the of the petitioner. The present application is barred by principles of res judicata. It is further contended that the petitioner is not a competent person to file the application. The present application is a clear abuse of process of Court. Hence, this petition has to be dismissed.