Disposed

A.Fakrudhin Ali Ahamed v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 Apr 2019CRL OP/5612/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR in a property dispute involving purchasers and a bank. It directed the police to delete the petitioners and the bank from the FIR, complete investigation against specific accused, and keep the recovery of possession for civil court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police to delete the petitioners and HDFC Bank from the FIR, complete investigation against A1 and A2, and refer recovery of possession to civil court.

A.Fakrudhin Ali Ahamed Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.5612 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3182 & 4914 of 2019

¶6

1.A.Fakrudhin Ali Ahamed

¶7

2.A.Yasmin ... Petitioners Vs. 1. State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch II, Chennai. 2. R.Krishnamurthy ... Respondents PRAYER:

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the First Information Report dated 03.11.2018 registered in Crime No.193 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police viz., Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch II, Chennai District and quash the same.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.193 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶11

2.It is seen that the petitioners are arrayed as 3^rd and 4^th accused in Crime No.193 of 2018. On perusal of the documents, it shows that the petitioners are purchasers of the disputed property.

¶12

3.The case of the defacto complainant is that, he is the owner of the property and he was impersonated by A1 and A1 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A2. On the strength

¶13

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

¶14

of the Power of Attorney dated 06.03.2016, the 2^nd accused has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners/A3 & A4.

¶15

4.It is also curious to note that, the 1^st respondent registered the case as against the 5^th accused viz., HDFC Bank, Anna Salai, Chennai also and while purchasing the property, the petitioners availed loan from the 5^th accused to construct house in the disputed property. On the strength of the sale deed, the 5^th accused/HDFC Bank also executed a Mortgage deed and the petitioners/A3 and A4 availed the loan to construct house. Accordingly, they also constructed the house. Admittedly, the petitioners are residing there for the past two years.

¶16

5.Therefore, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the above facts and circumstances and delete the name of the petitioners/A3 & A4 and the 5^th accused in the FIR and complete the investigation and file a final report as against A1 and A2. In so far as recovery of possession is concerned, the petitioners have already filed a suit for declaration. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant is at liberty to agitate the issue before the civil Court, in respect of the recovery of possession of the property, in the manner known to law.

¶17

6.With the above said direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Deputy Registrar(CJ Conf.) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vv2 To 1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch II, Chennai. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.R.Manickavel, Advocate, S.R.No.36646 +1cc to Mr.M.Mathivanan, Advocate, S.R.No.36003

¶18

CRL.O.P.No.5612 of 2019 BS(CO) CS/20/05/2019

¶19

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

A.Fakrudhin Ali Ahamed v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Fakrudhin Ali Ahamed 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

Mrs.Rukmani (Aged 60 Years) Vs S.Vandhana

Dr.R.Vilwanathan Vs Shobana W/O Dr.Viswanathan

Mahesh Vs State Rep by

G.Gopirajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohan Vs State Rep by

Mr.Ragunathan, Vs S.Yamini