9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a joint complaint is envisaged under the Code. 2. Whether the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. 3. Whether the procedure followed by the Magistrate is not in accordance with law. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: POINT NO. 1: Whether a joint complaint is envisaged under the Code. The accused's counsel argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not envisage a joint complaint, making the complaint and subsequent proceedings legally erroneous. The complainants' counsel countered that there is no prohibition under the Code for filing a joint complaint, and even if it is not contemplated, it would only amount to an irregularity, not an illegality, thus not vitiating the proceedings. The court noted that no provision in the Code supports the filing of joint complaints, referencing the Madras High Court's decision in Narayanaswamy v. Egappa, which highlighted the absence of provisions authorizing two or more complainants to file a single complaint. The court agreed with this view, upholding the objection that a joint complaint is not envisaged under the Code. POINT NO. 2: Whether the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. The court examined the averments in the complaint and the sworn statements of the complainants. The complainants alleged that the accused misappropriated gold and silver articles worth Rs. 8 to Rs. 10 lakhs, which were originally the assets of His Holiness Anandashrama Swamiji and later transferred to the Pandurangashrama Trust. The 1st accused, after becoming the Chairman of the Trust, allegedly misappropriated these assets. The complainants filed a complaint with the police, who, after investigation, treated the matter as a civil dispute and submitted a final 'B' report. The complainants then filed a complaint under Section 200 read with Section 190 of the Code, which the Magistrate acted upon. The court found that the dispute, involving a demand for the return of trust assets and the accused's refutation of the complainants' rights, essentially constituted a civil dispute. The complainants, as beneficiaries, should seek recourse in civil courts rather than initiating criminal proceedings. POINT NO. 3: Whether the procedure followed by the Magistrate is not in accordance with law. Given the findings on Points 1 and 2, the court deemed it unnecessary to express an opinion on this point for the disposal of the petition. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the proceedings initiated on the joint complaint were not in accordance with the Code and that the dispute was of a civil nature.
|
