Allowed

Ajit George, 43 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Nov 2021CRL OP/14102/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash proceedings against two petitioners. The Court held that as no allegations were made against them in the FIR, the investigation against them must cease, while it continues against other accused.

What did the court decide?

The complaint as against the petitioners alone is quashed and the investigation shall continue as against the other accused.

Ajit George, 43 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.14102 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NO.9015 OF 2017

¶6

Ajit George 2. Michale ... Petitioners

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police, Hosur Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Crime No.292 of 2012.

¶9

Venkatesh ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER:-

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for all the records and quash all the proceedings FIR in Crime No.292 of 2012 now pending investigation on the file of the 1^st Respondent.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Daniel

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate(Crl. Side) For R1

¶14

R2 - No appearance

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records and quash all the proceedings of FIR in Crime No.292 of 2012 pending investigation on the file of the 1^st Respondent.

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioners have been arrayed as A4 and A5 in the complaint. The crux of the allegation in the FIR is that A1 being the Power of Attorney holder of the Trust, agreed to sell the property to the defacto complainant and received a sum of Rs.77,50,000/- on 14.02.2009. Further, the defacto complainant was ready to pay the balance of sale consideration. However, A1 had dealt with the property and sold the same to one K.Sakthivel on 17.02.2009 without the complainant's consent and knowledge. The sale deed executed by the 1^st accused/Power of Attorney holder in favour of K.Sakthivel of his own accord is null and void, the same will not bind the complainant under the law. The complainant's further case is that the accused 1 to 5 having malafide and dishonest intention to cheat the complainant, made the defacto complainant to believe the sale deed as genuine documents and entered into criminal conspiracy with the other trustees of the so called trust and with some other illegal advisors with a view to have the entire advance amount of Rs.77,50,000/- financed by the complainant herein. Moreover, the first accused helped the subsequent purchaser of the properties by name K.Sakthivel to obtain Chitta in his favour from the Revenue authorities, thus defrauded the complainant by the accused. Thereby, A1 colluded with all other accused and defrauded the defacto complainant.

¶19

This Court normally will not interfere with the FIR. When the allegations in the FIR do not show any complicity of the other accused with the crime. There is no point in continuing the investigation as against the other accused. The main allegation is attracted as against A1 for alleged cheating and receipt of money. There is no allegation made in the FIR except contending that other accused conspired with A1, other than that, there is no whisper what so ever made against the present petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the continuation of investigation against the present petitioners is not valid when there is no allegation made in the FIR. Hence, the complaint as against the present petitioners alone is quashed and the investigation shall continue as against the other accused.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

msv/nr

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Inspector of Police, Hosur Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶29

The Public Prosecutor

¶30

High Court, Madras.

¶31

CRL.O.P.NO.14102 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NO.9015 OF 2017

¶32

RSV(CO) PBS/22/12/2021

¶33

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

Ajit George, 43 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit George, 43 Yrs, 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

T Sournavel, Vs S. Krishnaveni

Venugopal, Aged 32 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Raja, Aged 41 Yrs Vs S.Jayapal

Senthil Tsp M/a 65 Years, Vs Reliance Capital Limited

K. Rajagopal, 69 Yrs, Vs Deputy Superintendent of

Vanitha Devi, Vs K.R. Eswaramurthy