1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD) No.465 of 2011 S.P.K.Paneerselvam ... Petitioner/Complainant Vs 1.Natarajan 2.Ganesan ... Respondents/Accused Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 401 read with 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.2533 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin and set aside the order of dismissal dated 27.04.2011 and allowing this Criminal Revision Petition by directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police of District Crime Branch of Tuticorin to register a case on the complaint given by the petitioner on 08.04.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Venkatesaperumal For R.1 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R.2 : Mr.M.M.Manivel O R D E R The petitioner is a treasurer in Villathikulam Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam and the respondents are the erstwhile President and the erstwhile Secretary of the said association. The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 408,409,380,384 and 420 IPC. In the compliant, the petitioner has alleged that the respondents during their tenure misused their position and swindled the amount which had to be credited to the account of the said Society. Two instances have been mentioned in the complaint. One is Rs.1,00,000/- rental advance received by the then President through the rental agreement dated 03.02.2010 with respect to the premises belonging to the Society and another instance is receipt of Rs.10,000/- from one Arunachalam as rental advance on 27.12.2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin District has dismissed the petition by observing that no prima facie case is made out and the dispute between the parties is regarding the management of the said Sangam and there is no material to constitute the offences alleged in the petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the records would show that the respondents had tampered with the records by overwriting and making interlinear in the accounts and the audit report would show that Rs.10,000/- received as advances were not credited and that the Court below has not perused the records properly. 3. Repelling the above said contentions, the learned counsel for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai would contend that the respondents are producing the two original registers before this Court today which would show that the affairs of the Society have been managed properly by making https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 entries day-to-day without any inclusion or overwriting; that the alleged swindled amount of Rs.10,000/- is not true, because the amount was received as advance only on 27.12.2010, but the audit report produced by the petitioner was for the period ending with 31.03.2010 and that Rs.1,00,000/- received as advance from M/s.Babu Tex has been duly credited and entered into the registers of the Society. 4. This Court has gone through the original registers. The first register is for the period from 31.03.2009 to 31.03.2010 in which page No.19 shows on 23.01.2010, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was received for leasing out of the Society premises. With regard to the transactions, the corresponding register which is called as “five type accounts” (Ie;J tif fzf;F ) in page No.23, which shows that on 23.01.2010, a sum of Rs.1,000/- and on 03.02.2010, another sum of Rs.99,000/- were received as advance for the premises leased to M/s.Babu Tex. There is overwriting in the numerical “1” in the date 23.01.2010. But, in the next entry, which is relating to a larger amount, there is no overwriting. The abovesaid overwriting could not have been made with criminal intention, when the other register is compared in page No.69, as stated above, on 23.01.2010, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was received. All the pages of the first register show the day-to-day routine transactions of the Society without any intermeddling or overwriting in the accounts. In the abovesaid circumstances, the allegation that Rs.1,00,000/- has been swindled by the respondents has no legs to stand. 5. As far as the second allegation with regard to the misappropriation of Rs.10,000/- received from the said Arunachalam, the transaction was on 27.12.2010, but the audit report shows that it was for the period ending with 31.03.2010. Naturally, the said audit report could not contain the entry dated 27.12.2010. In this context, there is no basis for the second allegation also. 6. In view of the above said discussions and observations, this Court is of the considered view that there is no prima facie case available in the complaint to take cognizance of any of the offences against the respondents. Hence, the order passed by the Court below does not warrant any interference, which has to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To: The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul. Ssm GH : 23.08.2011 : 2p/2c Crl.R.C.(MD) No.465 of 2011 10.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/