Allowed

Rajkumar v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC8 Jun 2023CRL OP/1908/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed a criminal charge sheet in a money transaction dispute. Finding allegations of assault and cheating between parties with a known financial relationship to be inherently improbable and noting the death of the complainant, the Court held no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge sheet was quashed and the Criminal Original Petition was allowed.

Rajkumar Vs the State Rep.by — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1908 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.1908 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.1093 of 2021

Rajkumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, V-3, JJ Nagar Police Station, Ambattur Industrial Estate Road, Anna Nagar, Mogappair East, Chennai,

¶10

Tamil Nadu - 600040.

¶11

2.Manigandan ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.212 of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai and to quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.Ma. Gouthaman

¶14

For Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Procecutor [R.1]

¶15

: No appearance [R.2]

¶16

1/5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.1908 of 2021

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petition is to quash the final report for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 294 (b) 384 and 506 IPC.

¶21

It is alleged in the final report that the petitioner was known to the

¶22

de facto complainant and on 21.03.2018 at about 1.30 pm, he had waylaid and attacked the de facto complainant and obtained 2 blank cheques bearing Nos.448377 and 44378 drawn on SBI Bank, besides Driving License and PAN card belonging to the de facto complainant.

¶23

3.(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were money transactions between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and thus, the complaint which has culminated in the impugned final report was filed only to avoid payment of money and to prevent the petitioner from depositing the cheques issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶24

3.(b). The learned counsel further submitted that the de facto complainant is no more and in any event the cheques which were issued by the de facto complainant cannot be encashed. The petitioner had also not

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.1908 of 2021

¶28

presented the said cheques so far. The learned counsel further submitted that since the case is motivated and it is a malafide, the impugned prosecution is liable to be quashed.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are allegations in the impugned final report which have to be adjudicated only by the Trial Court. He further submitted that the de facto complainant is no more and the 1st respondent police attempted to inform the legal heirs of the de facto complainant about the pending proceedings. However, they found that there are no legal heirs for the de facto complainant.

¶30

This Court on perusal of the impugned final report finds that admittedly there were money transactions between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The allegation that the petitioner had attacked and obtained the cheques in favour of the petitioner appears to be inherently improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the relationship between the parties, the allegation of attack and abuse in filthy language cannot be believed.

¶31

3/5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.1908 of 2021

¶34

In any case, the de facto complainant is no more and even assuming that the petitioner had taken the cheques forcibly, cannot encash the same. The petitioner has not so far presented the cheques said to have been collected by him. Further, as stated earlier, the de facto complainant is no more and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the Trial Court.

¶35

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

08.06.2023

¶37

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No shr

¶38

To,

¶39

The Inspector of Police, V-3, JJ Nagar Police Station, Ambattur Industrial Estate Road, Anna Nagar, Mogappair East, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600040.

¶40

The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai.

¶41

4/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.1908 of 2021

¶44

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶45

shr

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.1908 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.1093 of 2021

¶47

08.06.2023

¶48

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rajkumar v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar v. the State Rep.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

Heerchand Surana Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry

Chainsingh Vs State Rep by

M.Ganga Nivethita Vs the State by

Maheswari Vs Special Sub Inspector of Police

Prabakaran Vs State by

Selvaraj Vs State Rep.by