P V R S MANIKUMAR Vs. KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a peculiar case wherein both the petitioner/accused and the counsel for the accused are accused of suppression of facts as well as misleading of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, the Sessions Court and this Court.

(2.) The factual matrix, which are quite interesting and equally disturbing, are given below :-(a) P.V.R.S. Manikumar, the petitioner herein, is the accused in C.C. No. 3316 of 1998 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on a private complaint filed by Krishna Reddy, the respondent herein, for the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.(b) According to the complaint, the accused gave two cheques dated 15-12-1997 and 31-3-1998 for Rs. 6,50,000/- and Rs. 7,25,920/- respectively. The first cheque was towards the principal and the second cheque was towards the interest as reckoned up to 31-3-98. These cheques were presented on 31-3-98 and the same were dishonoured on 2-4-98. On 6-4-98, the complainant sent a statutory notice demanding the cheque amount, to the petitioner/accused.(c) After receipt of the said notice on 17-4-98, the petitioner sent a reply without making any payment of the cheque amount. Then on 21-4-1998,the complainant sent a rejoinder and even then, no payment was made. Therefore, within the time limit prescribed under the Act, the complainant filed the said private complaint on 4-5-1998.(d) The trial commenced on 27-8-98 on which date the chief examination of the complainant was completed and he was subjected to cross-examination on 13-10-98, 3-11-98 and 4-11-98 by the counsel for the petitioner/accused.(e) On 4-11-98, after completion of the cross-examination of the complainant, the counsel for the petitioner filed a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 9805 of 1998 under S. 245(2), Cr. P.C. for discharge. Though already trial had commenced and the examination of P.W. 1 was over, the trial Court entertained the said petition for discharge and permitted the complainant to file a counter. The counsel for the parties were heard by the trial Court. Ultimately, the said application was dismissed on 18-11-98.(f) Thereafter, P.Ws. 2 and 3, the officials of the bank, were examined on 25-11-1998 and the prosecution side was closed. Thereafter, the case was posted on 10-12-98 for questioning the accused under S. 313, Cr. P.C.(g) On 24-11-98, the petitioner/accused filed a Revision before the Sessions Court in Crl. R.C. No. 213/98 challenging the order dated 18-11-1998 dismissing the discharge petition. Though this was admitted by the learned Sessions Judge, no stay was granted and the matter was posted on 17-12-98.(h) On coming to know about the pendency of the Revision before the Sessions Court, the complainant filed a petition before the Sessions Court on 30-11-98 to advance the hearing of Crl. R.C. No. 213/98 from 17-12-98 to an earlier date. In that, notice was ordered returnable by 9-12-98.(i) In the meantime, on 8-12-98, the petitioner/accused filed the present petition for quashing before this Court and obtained an order of stay of the proceedings of the trial Court on the same day.(j) When the Revision was posted on 9-12-98 for fixing an earlier hearing date, the counsel for the petitioner/accused appeared before the Sessions Court and requested time for filing counter. However, the Sessions Court was not informed about the stay order dated 8-12-98 granted by the High Court. The Sessions Court by giving time for counter posted the matter on 17-12-98.(k) On 10-12-98, when the matter came up for questioning before the trial Court, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, this matter was adjourned to 22-1-99. On this date also, the trial Court was not informed about the stay order dated 8-12-98 granted by this Court.(l) On 17-12-98, the Revision before the Sessions Court came up for final disposal. However, it was adjourned to 21-12-98. On that date also, the Sessions Court was not informed about the stay granted by the High Court. On 21-12-98, the Revision was taken up for final disposal and heard by the Sessions Court. Even on that date also, the counsel for the petitioner did not inform about the stay order dated 8-12-98 passed by this Court. Ultimately, the Sessions Court dismissed the Revision on 24-12-98.(m) Since the Revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court, the complainant filed a petition before the trial Court to advance the hearing of the case from 22-1-99 to an earlier date. This petition was posted on 7-1-99 after ordering notice. Only on 7-1-99, the counsel for the petitioner filed a memo informing about the stay order dated 8-12-98 granted by this Court.(n) That is how the complainant has been constrained to file a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 339/99 requesting this Court to vacate the order of stay dated 8-12-98 giving the details of the suppression of material facts before this Court, while obtaining the order of stay.

(3.) As regards the factual details relating to the dates of hearing in various Courts, there is no denial on the part of the counsel for the petitioner/accused. Therefore, before deciding the propriety of the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner in relation to misleading of the Court, it is desirable at the threshold to decide about the points urged in this petition for quashing.