KEDIYA VANASPATHI LIMITED Vs. R V S MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally the petitioner has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by filing Crl.P. No.4722/2000. But subsequently, it has been converted into Crl.R.C.No.743 of 2001. Kediya Vanaspathi Limited, represented by its Director has presented a complaint before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on for the offence under Section 120-B, 420, 406 and 379 IPC and the same was referred to Bhadurpura Police Station, for investigation. Thereupon, a charge-sheet was presented which has been taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 406 read with 34 IPC and 420 read with 34 IPC and numbered it as C.C.No.83 of 1998. Thereafter, the respondents herein presented Crl.M.P.No.619 of 1999 before the lower Court seeking discharge on the ground that the matter is of purely civil in nature and the said act of breach of terms of the agreement do not constitute any criminal offence. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the matter has been carried in appeal before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.R.P.No.268 of 1999. After perusing the material and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge ordered for discharge of A-1 and A-2. It is significant to note that the de facto complainant has not made as a party to the said criminal revision petition. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by preferring this case.

(2.) The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that the documents presented by the accused cannot be to taken in to consideration at the time of passing the order or discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Sri P. V. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on a catena of decisions of Supreme Court, namely, Minakshi Bala v. Sudir Kumar and others, (1994) 4 SCC 142, State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Romesh Chander, AIR 1997 SC 2401, Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996 (3) Crimes 85 (SC), State, Anti Corruption Bureau v. P.Suryaprakasam, 1999 SCC (Crl.) 373, and K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar and others, 2000 (6) Supreme 609. The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that Section 239 of Cr.P.C contemplates of looking into the documents filed by the accused and wants to base his interpretation on the words "making such examination" found in Section 239 Cr.P.C. He further relied on the decisions of Supreme Court cited by the other side and contends that there is no bar to look into the documents filed by the accused for discharging them.

(3.) Before adverting to the said contentions, it is necessary to have a look at Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Section 239 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: 239. When accused shall be discharged: