R MANOHARAN Vs. P NAAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for a direction to set aside the docket order in unnumbered CC No. NIL of 2009 dated 14.7.2009 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

(2.) A private complaint was preferred by the petitioner herein before X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for an offence punishable under Section 408 IPC against his power agent on the allegation that the power agent, who sold a portion of the petitioner's land, neither rendered account for the same nor deposited the amount with the petitioner. The learned Magistrate returned the complaint without seeking for any clarification/explanation by the following endorsement dated 14.7.2009.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused, who has been entrusted with the property and authorized by the petitioner to execute a sale deed on his behalf with the purchaser, failed to perform such duty in his capacity as Power Agent. Prima facie materials are available to proceed against him and even a bare perusal of the averment of allegations in the complaint would go to show that an offence under Section 408 IPC is made out. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate should have sought for clarification before returning the complaint. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on the case law in Som Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1972 SC 1490: (1972) SCC (Cr) 3 59: (1972) 1 MLJ (Crl) 656 wherein it is held as follows at p. 659 of MLJ (Crl):