Dismissed

Natesa Thamilarvan v. the State Represented by

Madras HC8 Nov 2021CRL OP/25558/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this quashing petition, the petitioner challenged an FIR registered for misappropriation of cooperative society funds, arguing that the underlying enquiry proceedings were stayed in a writ petition. The High Court held that the writ petition did not deter investigation into serious allegations and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition for quashing the First Information Report is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Natesa Thamilarvan Vs the State Represented by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.25558 of 2017 and CRL.M.P.Nos.14703 & 14704 of 2017

¶6

Natesa Thamilarvan ... Petitioner/Accused-1

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing Thiruvarur District.

¶9

... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.4 of 2017 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Ms.D.Bharathy

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report filed against the petitioner and the other accused in Crime No.4 of 2017 for the offences under sections 408, 409, 420, 471, 477A and 34 of IPC.

¶15

The First Information Report has been registered by the respondent on the basis of the complaint given by the District Registrar, [Housing], Tanjore. The complaint proceeds as if pursuant to enquiry under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Society Act, 1983, it came to light that there were serious misappropriation of funds of the society which resulted in huge loss. On the basis of which First Information Report has been registered in Crime No.4 of 2017 for the offences under sections 408, 409, 420, 471, 477A and 34 of IPC on the

¶16

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

¶17

allegation of misappropriation to the tune of Rs.20,12,068.25.

¶18

The main contention of Mr.Sankarasubbu, learning counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the proceedings under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act has been challenged in a writ petition and this Court has passed an Order directing the respondent to furnish some documents relied in the above proceedings, which has not been furnished to the petitioner so far. Therefore, it is his contention that till the enquiry under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is completed, there cannot be any First Information Report. Hence, prayed for quashing the First Information Report.

¶19

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/

¶20

This Court is unable to understand what is relationship between the writ petition and criminal prosecution. The writ petition has been filed under a different situation where the surcharge proceedings has been challenged by the petitioner herein. Only the scope of the proceedings under section 81 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Sociey Act was questioned in the writ petition and Order passed by this Court indicate what was agititated and requested before the writ Court is only certain documents, which were Ordered to be furnished. Therefore, this Court is of the view that those proceedings will not deter the investigation agency to probe the misappropriation of Funds. Considering the above, as the allegations appears to be serious in nature with regard to misappropriation of funds, which has to be unearthed only during investigaton, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.

¶21

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

vrc

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing Thiruvarur District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRL.O.P.No.25558 of 2017 and CRL.M.P.Nos.14703 & 14704 of 2017

¶29

SVI(CO) SU(30/11/2021)

¶30

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

Natesa Thamilarvan v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natesa Thamilarvan v. the State Represented 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.E.S.M.Ahamed Mariyam Vs M/s.Ps Srijan Developers LLP

Mr. K.R. Appavoo Vs Kapilgupta

M/s. Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd, Vs M/s. Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory

Poonimadevi Vs the State Rep. by Its

Prabakaran Vs State by

P.Kumaran Vs B.Govindaraj