13 July 2008
hi, one of my friend give me this "judgment of the Madras High Court"
***************************************** The judgment of the Madras High Court quoted in the news report below could help you in criminal cases. _______-
Keep off civil disputes, HC tells police
It Will Only Result In Huge Pendency Of Cases: Judge
A Subramani | TNN / TIMES OF INDIA, CHENNAI 13 July 2008
Chennai: Can criminal proceedings be initiated for issues concerning credit cards, personal loans, housing loans, hire-purchase schemes, default in payment of instalments and cheque-bounce cases? No, is the Madras High Court's emphatic answer. Neither the judicial/metropolitan magistrates shall entertain any private complaints from corporate firms in this connection, nor shall the police register criminal cases against persons concerned to please their corporate complainants, said Justice R Regupathi. Not stopping with that, the judge directed the high court's registrar (vigilance) to compile state-wide statistics on the number of private complaints lodged for these civil disputes, and the orders passed by the magistrates concerned. Narrating the novel system adopted by private financial institutions/banks, the judge said they file private complaints before magistrates and secure an order directing the jurisdictional police to register a criminal case and carry out investigations under Section 156(3) of the CrPc. Despite the fact that the dispute is civil in nature and the police are under no obligation to register any case, police personnel contact the persons and intimidate them to repay the credit card payment or personal loan or hire-purchase amount due to the bank. Citing two specific cases that came up before him, Justice Regupathi said in both cases though there was nothing to investigate, the magistrate concerned, "with oblique motive to convert a civil case into a criminal case," directed police to register a case and probe.
Magistrates asked not to entertain private complaints
Police not to register criminal cases in such complaints
Erring magistrates warned of stringent action
HC registrar asked to compile statistics on number of private complaints
Also asked to report on the orders passed by the magistrates concerned
Banks using police to harass defaulters: HC ****************************************** also in "judgement of the Supreme Court" wherein it has been decided that the NBW could not be issued at the first instance. It had to be preceede by summons and a bailable warrant. ****************************************** Kindly advice if this Judgment is there then how could the Banks had issues Warrants and filed cases on me under Criminal Law from the lower court,can I get those cases and warrants/summons cancelled on basis of this judgment and can we take action against banks and sue them for mental harassment.can i file PIL for this.
15 July 2008
This judgment is not complete but just a news report. go for the whole text of the judgment and then you can make out what this judgment exactly wishes to say. each and every case depends on its own facts and circumstances. so lokk at this point of view.
25 August 2008
latest judgment of chennai high court on criminal cases file by banks:
Friday, August 22, 2008 HC: Don't refer civil nature for police investigation “Transfer cases of civil disputes to High Court”
K.T.Sangameswaran CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the Registry to withdraw cases all over the State involving disputes of civil nature in which magistrates have ordered police investigation, call for the records and transfer them to the High Court.
Passing further orders on two criminal original petitions, Justice R. Regupathi said the Registry should place the entire material and particulars before the Chief Justice for orders for an enquiry in those matters. Further proceedings of all those cases pending with the magistrates concerned were stayed till the disposal of the proceedings by the court.
The judge said all records, including vigilance reports, might be placed before the Chief Justice for taking appropriate departmental action against the magistrates, in particular III, X, XVII and XVIII Metropolitan Magistrates, Chennai, and Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore and Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.
The DGP was directed to instruct police officers who had received orders from the magistrates in such cases under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C and the Station House Officers (SHOs) who had entertained similar complaints in the name of “petition enquiry” to obtain opinion from the Director-General/Additional Director-General of Prosecution/Assistant Public Prosecutors and to file interim/final reports before the jurisdiction magistrates within two weeks. The DGP should file compliance report in three weeks.
Earlier, Justice Regupathi had directed the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, to collect statistics of private complaints relating to credit cards, personal loans, housing loans, hire-purchase loans and default in payment of instalments and cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein orders for police investigation were passed by magistrates. Accordingly, the Registrar submitted a report.
The judge said the huge number of cases entertained by the six magistrates was quite alarming.
Mr. Justice Regupathi said some judicial magistrates, in collusion with complainant bankers/financial institutions, were entertaining complaints relating to matters of civil nature and passed orders, under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., for police investigation to the undue benefit of financial institutions. In some instances, they were entertaining similar complaints under section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
Vigilance inquiries were conducted, and the complaints entertained were quashed by the High Court. Despite the High Court’s reaction and repeated directives to judicial magistrates not to refer matters of civil nature for police investigation, it had come to light that such trend was still in vogue.
28 August 2008
NEWS RELETED TO RECENT CHENNAI HIGH COURT JUGDMENT:
CHENNAI: Six magistrates, four in Chennai and one each in Coimbatore and Paramakudi, who had entertained complaints which are purely civil in nature from banks and financial institutions, are in trouble.
Justice R Regupathy on Thursday suggested departmental action against the six magistrates while passing further orders on two criminal original petitions.
While passing interim orders earlier, the judge had castigated the judicial magistrates who took cognizance of such complaints and ordered the police to hold investigation, and directed the Vigilance Department to submit statistics of pending cases of credit card transactions, personal loans, hire purchase loans, cheque bounce cases with IPC offences.
And in its report, the department stated that as many as 10,738 such cases were pending before the X Metropolitan Magistrate in Egmore, 10,293 before the III MM in GT, 3,159 before XVII MM in Saidapet and 171 before XVIII MM in Saidapet. The report also stated that 243 cases were pending before the JM-III in Coimbatore and 156 before the JM in Paramakudi.
The judge observed that because of the orders passed mechanically by the magistrates, who colluded with the complainants, the police harassed the borrowers and subjected them to untold misery.
Staying all the proceedings pending before the six magistrates, the judge directed the Registry to transfer all the cases to the High Court.