The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed a private complaint alleging conspiracy by bank officials to fraudulently auction properties. The court held that since the borrower was a defaulter and the auction followed statutory powers, the prosecution was an abuse of process of law.
The entire prosecution in C.C.No.54 of 2014 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.06.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.18492 of 2015 and 3769 of 2016 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18492 of 2015 & Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.1900 & 1901 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3769 of 2016
... Petitioner/A8 in Crl.O.P.(MD)18492/2015
-vs-
A.Habib Mohammed
... Respondent in both petitions
Prayer Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18492 of 2015 : Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the private Complaint in C.C.No.54 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same.
Prayer Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3769 of 2016 : Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the proceedings in C.C.No.54 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai so far as the petitioners are concerned and to quash the same and grant such other relief or reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Reserved on Pronounced on 07.06.2017 14.06.2017
2
C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioners/accused in both these petitions seek to quash the case in C.C.No.54 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.
4.1. The accused 1 to 7 are Officials of Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (in short "the TIIC"), which was constituted under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The complainant borrowed around Rs.19,00,000/- from the TIIC in the year 1995 by mortgaging his two properties for the purpose of establishing an Industry. After the loan was sanctioned, it came to light that the complainant had surreptitiously removed the machineries and goods from the bonded shop floor without the knowledge of the TIIC and therefore, a case in Crime No.20 of 1997 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was registered against the complainant by the District Crime Branch, Madurai on the complaint lodged by Sekar (A1), who was the Manager of the TIIC at the relevant point of time. After the investigation, the District Crime Branch, Madurai filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.26 of 1999 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai for the said offences against the complainant herein. In the trial in C.C.No.26 of 1999, Sekar and other Officials were examined as prosecution witnesses.
4.2. During the pendency of the criminal prosecution, the complainant defaulted in making payment to the TIIC towards the mortgaged loan and therefore, the TIIC brought the properties of the complainant to public auction on 30.11.2017. Since there was no bidder, second auction was held on 23.01.2008 and on that day also, there was no bidder for the properties. Subsequently, third auction was held on 27.02.2008, in which A8 emerged as a successful bidder and a sale certificate was issued in favour of A8 on 24.03.2009.
4.3. The complainant was acquitted in C.C.No.26 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai on 17.07.2012. After waiting for a year and ensuring himself that no appeal against his acquittal is filed, the complainant has lodged the present complaint on 05.08.2013 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai against A1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to A7, who are TIIC Officials and A8, who was the successful bidder, alleging that they had all conspired to bring his property to sale
3
fraudulently.
4
property was brought to sale only in accordance with law and not otherwise. Therefore, the present prosecution of the accused is clearly an abuse of process of law, which deserves to be quashed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To:
The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.
AR
TE/GT/SAR-IV : 27/06/2017 : 4P/5C
ORDER IN Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.18492 of 2015 & 3769 of 2016 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18492 of 2015 & Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.1900 & 1901 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3769 of 2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present private complaint is an abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed.
Whether the sale of the complainant's properties was lawful given his default and the earlier acquittal.
Whether the acquittal in the earlier trial precludes the current complaint of conspiracy to defraud.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.S.A. Akkayasamy and others
A. Habib Mohammed
P.N. Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
