Allowed

P.Shanmugam v. State Rep.by

Madras HC25 Apr 2023CRL OP/33540/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an FIR filed under Sections 294(b), 120-B, 409, 420, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, holding the complaint filed nearly 19 years after the alleged transaction to be an abuse of process of law with no substantive allegations.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the impugned First Information Report was quashed as an abuse of process of law.

P.Shanmugam Vs State Rep.by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P. No. 33540 of 2019 and Crl.M.P. No. 18507 of 2019

¶7

1.P.Shanmugam 2.P.Mani 3.M.Kalaivani 4.Saravanan 5.P.S.Karthikeyan ... Petitioners Vs.

¶8

1.State represented by Inspector of Police, Sankagiri Police Station, Salem District.

¶9

2.Selva Arasu ... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

1/8

¶12

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

¶13

PRAYER:

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶15

Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in F.I.R.No.343 of 2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr. M.R.Thangavel For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent 2 : Mr.T.Balaji for Mr. A.Thiagarajan

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The above petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.343 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Section 294(b), 120-B, 409, 420 & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.

¶19

It is alleged in the FIR that the 2^nd respondent and one

¶20

Natchimuthu had obtained a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from the 1^st and 2^nd

¶21

2/8

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

¶24

petitioners and executed a sale deed on 06.12.1996, in respect of the land situate at S.Nos.36/7, 27/1A8, 1A9, 1A11, Iveli Village, Sankagiri Taluk, measuring an extent of 1 acre, as a security for the loan received by them; that the 2^nd respondent and the said Natchimuthu had obtained a further sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as loan from the petitioners and executed a general Power of Attorney in favour of the 2^nd petitioner in respect of another property measuring 25 cents in S.No.27/18, 1A9 & 1A11; that a sale deed was executed by the 2^nd petitioner in favour of the 5^th petitioner as a power agent in respect of the said 25 cents; that the 2^nd respondent had settled the entire loan amount between 1998 to 2000; and that he had approached the petitioners seeking reconveyance of the said lands and he was threatened by the petitioners with dire consequences; and that therefore, the petitioners are liable for the offences of Section 294(b), 120-B, 409, 420 & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.

¶25

3/8

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

¶29

admittedly the 2^nd respondent had executed a sale deed in favour of the 3^rd petitioner in the year 1996 for an extent of 1 acre and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2^nd petitioner, in respect of 25 cents in the year 1997. The 2^nd petitioner had acted upon the Power of Attorney and executed a sale deed in favour of the 5^th petitioner in the year 2008.

¶30

The learned counsel would submit that it is the case of the 2^nd respondent that the loan was repaid between the years 1998 and 2000. While so, the impugned complaint given in the year 2019 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it is only an attempt to grab the property that was lawfully transferred to the petitioners. There is no document to show that a loan was obtained by the 2^nd respondent; that he had paid interest for the said loan. Hence, none of the allegations are made out.

¶31

4/8

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

¶34

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, however would submit that the petitioners have made it appear that it is the case of sale transaction. The petitioners exploited the situation of the 2^nd respondent and obtained the sale deeds. The 2^nd respondent is struggling to redeem the properties since 2000. The petitioners have failed to honour their promise to re-convey the property, inspite of receipt of the loan amount.

¶35

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the

¶36

submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and submitted that since the matter is under investigation, the impugned complaint may not be quashed and prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.

¶37

This Court on perusal of the impugned FIR finds that admittedly the sale deed in respect of one property was executed on 06.12.1996. The Power of Attorney in respect of the other property

¶38

executed in the year 1997 was acted upon in the year 2008, and a sale

¶39

5/8

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

¶42

deed was executed in favour of the 5^th accused. The allegation is that the 2^nd respondent had repaid the entire loan amount between the period from 1998 to 2000; and that however, the petitioners did not reconvey the property as promised by them. Admittedly, the 2^nd respondent has not filed any civil suit either for challenging the sale deeds or for redemption of the property. No documents have been produced by the 2^nd respondent to show that he had obtained a loan from the petitioners and that he had been paying interest to the petitioners.

¶43

The complaint given nearly 19 years after the alleged transaction and which is contrary to the terms of the registered document cannot be entertained by the respondent Police. The impugned FIR is therefore clearly an abuse of process of law. None of the offences have been made out. There is no allegation that the petitioners have uttered obscene words or made any real threat in order to attract offences of Section 294 (b) and 506 (i) of IPC. Further, neither cheating nor breach of trust is made out on the allegation to

¶44

6/8

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

¶47

attract the offences under Section 420 and 409 IPC.

¶48

As regards offence under Section 4 of the Tamilnadu

¶49

Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, as stated earlier, no document has been produced to show the payment of interest by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioners. The impugned FIR is therefore an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

¶50

In the result, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶51

connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶52

25.04.2023

¶53

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

¶54

¶55

The Inspector of Police, Sankagiri Police Station,

¶56

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

¶57

7/8

¶58

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

Salem District.

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

kan

Crl.O.P.No. 33540 of 2019

¶63

25.04.2023

¶64

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

¶65

8/8

P.Shanmugam v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Shanmugam v. 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

Muthukumar Vs State by

Kavitha Vs Antony Maria Prasand

K.R.Suresh Vs State by

Ravichandran Vs the Station House Officer

Jothi Lakshmi Vs the State

Nattarayasamy Vs the State by Inspector of Police