The High Court of Madras dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and property fraud victimizing a landowner. The Court held there were prima facie merits to the allegations and directed the police to complete the investigation within twelve weeks.
Disalowed quashing of FIR; directed investigation completion within twelve weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.NO.4121 OF 2020
AND CRL.MP.NO.2376 OF 2020
Chandramoorthy
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep by Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Chennai.
2. Mumtaj Beevi
... Respondents
PRAYER:
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records and quash the FIR in Crime No.526 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay for M/s.Aruna Elango,
A.S.Aswin Prasanna For Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to Cr.No.526 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent that she was the absolute owner of the property measuring to an extent of 3.75 acres and the value of the property was more than 25 crores in the year 2012-2013. The petitioner and others were interested in purchasing her property and had threatened her to part with her property. It is her
further case that, in order to discharge a registered mortgage on the property for Rs.2,00,000/-, the accused induced her to sell her property. It is further alleged that on 07.01.2013, the accused had forcefully taken the second respondent and her son to the office of the SRO, Virugambakkam and under the guise of registering an agreement of sale had executed sale deeds in their favour without paying the actual sale consideration. It is further alleged that only Rs.10 lakhs were paid to her by way of two cheques that she received no other money and that the accused have cheated her to the tune of Rs.24.90 crores. On 26.06.2013, she had lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and on 22.07.2013, she had lodged a complaint with the Inspector General, Registration and thereafter had again filed another complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 28.10.2017, since no action was taken, a petition was filed before this Court in Crl.OP.No.24069 of 2017 seeking for a direction to register the FIR.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that investigation was almost completed and so far as filing of file final report is concerned in view of the interim order passed by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2020, the first respondent cannot able to file final report.
4. A perusal of an FIR reveals that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner and other accused persons. There are totally 8 accused in this case. The petitioners herein has arrayed as first accused.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent police.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel, this Court finds no merits to quash the complaint lodged by the second respondent and this petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of
the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.
offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Vv
To
1. The Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.4121 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.2376 of 2020
PM(CO) PM/25/07/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report alleging cheating and property dispossession ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the investigation in Crime No.526 of 2018 shall be completed and a final report filed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.Relied on¶25
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandramoorthy
State rep by Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Chennai
Mumtaj Beevi
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
