Allowed

D. Venkataraman, 49 Yrs, v. Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Dec 2021CRL OP/22684/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC launched against petitioners following a compromise in the related civil suit. The Court held the FIR was motivated to grab properties and its continuance abused the process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Crime No.804 of 2014 and connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are quashed.

D. Venkataraman, 49 Yrs, Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 09.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No. 22684 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.13225 of 2017

¶6

1.D.Venkataraman 2.Kalaivani

¶7

. . . Petitioners / Accused

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.State Rep by

¶10

Sub Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai.

¶11

. . . Respondent / Complainant

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Crime.No.804 of 2014 of the first respondent Police, and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.Durai Kannan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar

¶15

Govt Advocate (Crl Side) for R1 : No appearance for R2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime.No.804 of 2014 of the first respondent Police against the accused for the offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and 120B IPC.

¶18

No representation for the de facto complainant.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the complaint has been filed allegedly by the advocate who was engaged into service by the present petitioner. Only in order to grab the properties of this petitioner, this complaint has been filed and FIR came to be lodged. Further, the Civil suit filed by the de-facto complainant is also ended in

¶20

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

¶21

compromise in O.S.No.5849 of 2014 on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the de-facto complainant is agreed to withdraw the complaint and all other proceedings and the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise. A copy of the same is also before this Court.

¶22

The very allegation in the First Information Report itself would indicate that as if the petitioners have engaged an advocate to evict the tenants illegally for which the Advocate who offered a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation, besides the advocate has also arranged Rs.50,00,000/- loan for that purpose. The petitioners appears to have executed the Power of Attorney and thereafter they cancelled the Power of Attorney is the crux of the allegation. The very allegation in the entire complaint and the First Information Report indicate that First Information Report is nothing but a motivated one. Being a member of the legal profession, his service is required only in the Court of Law and Tribunals, not to act as any Goonda to evict the tenants. For such exercise, claiming compensation and getting the Power of Attorney, is against the professional ethics. At any event, as the compromise has already reached as between the parties, this Court is of the view that continuance of First Information report, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, the criminal proceedings in Crime.No.804 of 2014 of the first respondent Police against the accused for the offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and 120B IPC, is quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

psa/asr

¶28

¶29

The Sub Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police Station,

¶30

Chennai.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

Crl. O.P. No. 22684 of 2017

¶33

SVI[co] NSK 23/12/2021

¶34

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

D. Venkataraman, 49 Yrs, v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Venkataraman, 49 Yrs, v. Sub 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. Manokaran, Vs M. Selvaraj, Proprietor

Tmt.J.Vijayalakshmi, Vs State by

S.Anandan, Age 53 Yrs, Vs R.Jaya

Y.P.Ravi Vs Iop J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Ps Chennai

Mohamed F.Ashik, Vs the State by

G.K.Narayansami, Aged 66 Years Vs