Partly allowed

P.Chellamuthu v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC22 Apr 2019CRL OP/668/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the Court ruled that proceedings against petitioners who were not parties to the alleged lease agreement should be quashed, while proceedings against the defendant who received the money were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.249 of 2018 against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners quashed; Criminal Original Petition partly allowed.

P.Chellamuthu Vs the State Rep by Its — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.668 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.420 of 2019
1.P.Chellamuthu
2.Selvi
3.C.Selvakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Rathinapuri Police Station,
Coimbatore.
(Crime No.919 of 2018).
2.G.K.Venkatesh ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in the C.C.No.249 of 2018, on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore and quash the
same.
For Petitioners: Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For R1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.C.Mohan Raj

¶6

ORDER

¶7

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.249 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore.

¶8

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.919 of 2018 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, as

¶9

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

¶10

against the petitioner and filed charge sheet in C.C.No.249 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶11

3.The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submit that the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent were entered into a lease agreement for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees five lakhs) and the duration for the 2^nd respondent to utilize the possession of the 1^st petitioner's property was fixed as eleven months in the unregistered lease deed dated 22.02.2016. Further, when the 2^nd respondent approached the petitioners for refund of his lease amount, the petitioners are refused to return the same and cheated the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this petition.

¶12

4.It is seen from the charge there are specific averments to attract the offences as against the 1^st petitioner. In respect of 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners/A2 & A3, they are not a parties to the lease agreement and nothing to do with the same. Even, according to the defacto complainant, the 1^st petitioner/A1 only received the money and entered into the lease agreement. Hence, the proceedings against the 2 nd and 3 rd petitioner/A2 & A3 is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 420 of IPC.

¶13

5 .Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.249 of 2018 as against the 2 nd and 3 rd petitioner/A2 & A3, on the file the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Coimbatore stands quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed. In respect of the 1 st petitioner/A1 stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy//

¶15

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

vv2

¶17

¶18

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Coimbatore.

¶19

2.do thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

¶20

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

¶21

3.The Inspector of Police, Rathinapuri Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶22

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶23

+1 cc to Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, Advocate, Sr.No. 3835

¶24

CRL.O.P.No.668 of 2019

¶25

NMI(CO) CSL/01.06.2019

¶26

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

P.Chellamuthu v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chellamuthu v. the State Rep by Its

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

K.v.Narayanan Vs S.Harini

K.Megaram Vs Suresh

Rakesh Vs Sowndarya

Packiaraj Vs Suguna

Eswaramoorthi Vs the State Rep by

E.Pandian, M/56 Vs All Women Police Station