Allowed

A.P.Pichandi, Aged 43 Years, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC13 Sept 2017CRL OP/3977/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an investigation initiated against the petitioner for dishonoured cheque offences. The Court found that the second respondent had previously admitted the debt in an anticipatory bail petition and filed the current FIR as a counter blast. The Court held the investigation was not fit to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The investigation in Crime No. 558 of 2017 is quashed as it is not a fit case for investigation.

A.P.Pichandi, Aged 43 Years, Vs State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.3977 of 2017
and
CRL MP.No.2962 of 2017
A.P.Pichandi ...Petitioner
.Vs.
1. State rep by Inspector of police (Crime),
F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai.
2. S.Arul Prakasam,
S/o. Sundaram, No.523, 1st Floor,
Arunachalam Flat, C-Block, South Mada
Street, Koyambedu, Chennai. .... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in connection with the complaint in Crime No.558 of 2017 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police F-5, Choolaimedu, Crime, Chennai and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Kaja Navas

¶9

For Respondent -1 : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

Petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to call

¶13

for the records in connection with the complaint in Crime No.558 of 2017

¶14

¶15

and quash the same.

¶16

2 . The brief facts of the case is as follows:

¶17

The second respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-

¶18

(Rupees Ten Lakhs) from the petitioner on four occasions between 16.10.2013 and 04.04.2014. Since, the second respondent had refused to return the money, the petitioner had given a police complaint on 14.04.2016 against the second respondent and the same is pending. However, the second respondent's wife had issued a cheque dated 16.09.2017, in favour of the petitioner towards discharge of the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- borrowed. The cheque was dishonored and the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in C.C.No.6716 of 2016 which is now pending for trial before the learned XVII Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶19

While the petitioner's complaint was kept pending, the second

¶20

respondent had filed an anticipatory bail petition before the Principal Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.18722 of 2016. In the said petition, the second respondent had clearly admitted the aforesaid facts. While that being so, the second respondent had given another police complaint before the first respondent, which was taken on the file in Crl.M.P.No.4259 of 2016 and ordered by the learned XVII Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶21

Since, the second respondent's complaint had culminated into http://www.judis.nic.in Crime No.558 of 2017 for various offences, petitioner has filed the present petition to quash the investigation.

¶22

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶24

Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. There is no representation for the second respondent.

¶25

On a perusal of the entire facts leading to filing of the impugned FIR, it is seen that the chain of events that had taken place, has necessitated

¶26

the second respondent to file a fictious complaint. I am continuously using the word fictious, in view of the fact that the second respondent had admitted about the debt due to the petitioner in his petition seeking for anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.18722 of 2016, who had chosen to give the criminal complaint in

¶27

FIR No.558 of 2017 with the facts which are contrary to his own statements.

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J,

smn/smi

The petitioner has also initiated proceedings under the Negotiable

¶33

Instrument Act for the amount due from the second respondent, which is also pending. Further more, the petitioner had also earlier given a police complaint against the second respondent on 14.04.2016. The present complaint which is culminated into an first information report seems to be a counter blast to the various legal steps taken by the petitioner against the second respondent.

¶34

From the perusal of the averments made in the complaint, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to be investigated. Hence, the investigation in Crime No.558 of 2017 on the file of the respondent is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

13.09.2017

smn/smi

Index:Yes/No

To.

The Inspector of police (Crime), http://www.judis.nic.in F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai.

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.3977 of 2017 and CRL MP.No.2962 of 2017

A.P.Pichandi, Aged 43 Years, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Pichandi, Aged 43 Years, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Deivamani, Vs M.Murugan

G.Karthikeyan, Aged 28 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Poovizhi Vs State rep.by

Radha Krishnan Vs the Forest Officer

Shahul Hameed Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindharajapuram Arijana Vs State rep. by Inspect of