C BHAKTAVATSALAM Vs. V GOVINDARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the first accused in C. C. 2270 of 1967 against the order of the Sixth Presidency Magistrate overruling certain preliminary objections raised by him. The facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding the points raised in this petition are briefly these:-The respondent, V. Govindarajulu, a retired Deputy Administrator-General and Official Trustee, Madras, filed a private complaint against the revision petitioner and two others alleging that they had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts in respect of certain trust properties of Saidapet Annadhana Samajam which is a public charitable society, of which the petitioner was the secretary and the other two accused were the President and Treasurer, respectively. The Sixth Presidency Magistrate took the case on file. The revision petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate alleging firstly, that the respondent was not a member of the Annadhanam samajam and as it is not shown that he was interested in the Samajam or the school run by it, he is incompetent to file the complaint; secondly, that the respondent filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of crimes in respect of the same matter and the said complaint was referred as a mistake of fact and that subsequently he appealed to the commissioner and the same was also dismissed and in those circumstances, the present complaint was not maintainable and its entertainment was barred; thirdly, that the complaint did not disclose any offence and so it was liable to be dismissed; and lastly that at the instance of the respondent, a civil suit was filed in respect of the same facts alleged against the petitioner and the other accused and that the complaint filed while the suit was pending, without the sanction of the civil Court was not maintainable.

(2.) IT has to be noted that after the Commissioner of Police disposed of the matter, the revision petitioner filed a complaint under Section 211, I. P. C, against the respondent and that was dismissed. Subsequently the respondent filed the present complaint and it appears, a revision against that order is pending.

(3.) LEARNED Sixth Presidency Magistrate negatived all the contentions raised by the petitioner before him and in my opinion, rightly.