Allowed

Gopi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Jun 2018CRL OP(MD)/20214/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR under Section 406 and 420 IPC (cheating) upon a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashment. The court found the FIR's allegations regarding a withheld settlement amount unsubstantiated, noting the sale deed indicated full consideration was received with no evidence of a promissory note dispute.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No. 138 of 2013 was quashed.

Gopi Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.06.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD).No. 20214 of 2013 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2013

¶7

Gopi

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State represented byThe Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, Madurai District ( in Crime No. 138 of 2013 ) ...Respondent/Complainant 2. Jeyaraj ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER : This Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining the FIR in Crime No.138 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C. Herold Singh For Respondent-1 : Mr.A. Robinson Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

For Respondent-2 : Mr.J. Senthil Kumariah

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner seeks quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.138 of 2013, on the file of the Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, Madurai District, which has been registered for the offences under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC.

¶16

The allegation of the defacto complainant is that, he borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) from the Petitioner. The second respondent/defacto complainant herein was not able to repay the said amount. Therefore, there was an agreement between the parties to sell the property in question in favour of the petitioner, after receiving the balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs Only). The case of the defacto complainant is that the petitioner prevailed upon him to execute a sale deed and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that he would settle the balance amount later. But, he did not pay the balance amount. Therefore, the second respondent lodged the

¶17

¶18

information in question, leading to registration of the impugned FIR. According to the second respondent, the petitioner executed a pro-note, but gave him a copy of the same and retained the original.

¶19

This Court went through the contents of the sale deed and it

¶20

states that the second respondent had received the entire sale consideration. If the petitioner had with-held a portion of the sale consideration, the vendor would have obtained the original pronote or signed cheque in his favour. There is nothing on the sort. Therefore, this Court is unable to believe the version set out in the FIR. No case is made out against the petitioner.

¶21

Hence, the FIR is quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police Station,

¶28

Madurai District.

¶29

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate, SR.No.67666. +1cc to Mr.J. Senthil Kumariah, Advocate, SR.No.68021.

¶31

CRL OP(MD).No. 20214 of 2013

¶32

11.06.2018

¶33

ksa

¶34

RAM/SV MMS/SAR 3/28.06.2018/2P/5C

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Gopi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi v. the Inspector of Police

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

Jayamani Vs the Inspector of Police

A.C.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Malaiselvam @ Selvam Vs the Superintendent of Customs

Resilammal Vs the Deputy Inspector General

M/S.Alfred Berfs @ Co. (I) Pvt. Vs the Drugs Inspector

R. Suriya Vs K. Kalaiarassan