Dismissed

K.Aravind v. the State Represented by Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Sept 2023CRL OP/6337/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an imported apple fraud case under IPC Sections 420, 120B, and 406, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition for the second petitioner. Although the first petitioner was already arrested rendering their specific prayer infructuous, the court denied bail to the second petitioner due to her role as a business director and the gravity of the cheating allegations regarding a failed import

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as infructuous for the first petitioner (arrested) and denied bail for the second petitioner.

K.Aravind Vs the State Represented by Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6337 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.6337 of 2023

¶3

Reserved On	07.09.2023
Pronounced On	13.09.2023

¶4

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶5

Imported apple fraud case. The petitioners/A1 & A2,

¶6

who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.03 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

¶7

When the matter is taken up today, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) stated that 1^st petitioner/A1 is already arrested. In view of the submission made, as far as the 1^st petitioner is concerned, this petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶8

The 2^nd petitioner/Durgapriya is the wife of the A1 and she is arrayed as A2.

¶9

The case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.2022, the de-facto complainant namely Ramesh S/o. Kirubalani made a complaint before the respondent police stating that the petitioners are Doctors in Chennai and also they are running a consultancy services name and style of ICEBERG QUAULITY CONSULTANCY SERVICES situated at Dr.Subrayan Street, Page 1 of 6

¶10

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

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.6337 of 2023

¶12

Kodambakkam, Chennai. The de-facto complainant is also running a company Viz., VARAM EXPORTSS at Coimbatore. In such circumstances, the 1^st petitioner received a sum of Rs.24,60,000/from the de-facto complainant for Stand by Letter of Credit (SBLC). Subsequently, the petitioners approached the de-facto complainant and requested to pay the money sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) for clearance of five Appeal Container sent by Rayushka Fresh Agro Farms LTD, Turkey. On believing words of the 1^st petitioner, the de-facto complainant transferred a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the petitioners' consultancy account. Later on, the petitioners issued a Proforma Invoice INV -000337 and INV 000339.) Subsequently, there was no reply from the petitioners and when the de-facto complainant approached the petitioners for refund of amount, they threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that A1 and the de-facto complainant have invested Rs.1,25,00,000/- on 16.03.2022 and 29.04.2022 and the de-facto

¶14

Page 2 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.6337 of 2023

¶17

complainant has got Rs.25,00,000/- on business rotation and he has converted the investment amount as debit money and fixed 5% for per mensum and a false case has been foisted against her merely because the 2^nd petitioner is the wife of A1 and she is no way connected with the office affairs of the A1. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail for the 2^nd petitioner.

¶18

According to the learned counsel for the intervenor, A1

¶19

& A2 are running a business in the name and style of Iceberg Quality Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd and they had received money from the de-facto complainant for importing five containers of apples to his Varam Exportss Company. After receiving the money, they didn't import anything and also refused to return the money. They had also threatened to kill the de-facto complainant.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) produced

¶21

the CD file and the investigation so far carried out in this case and as per the Registrar of Companies ledger, the 2^nd petitioner is shown as a business Director. The copies have been seized by the investigation officer. Admittedly, earlier anticipatory bail application

¶22

Page 3 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.6337 of 2023

¶25

has been filed and it was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.03.2023.

¶26

From the submissions made by both the parties, I find that the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners are alleged to have been running a Company in the name and style of ICEBERG QUAULITY CONSULTANCY SERVICES and under the guise of getting Rs.5 Crores loan for the de-facto complainant, they have received a sum of Rs.24,60,000/- for Stand by Letter of Credit (SBLC) and also collected Rs.1 Crore for the clearance of the 5 containers sent by Rayushka Fresh Agro Farms Ltd., Turkey.

¶27

It is a specific allegation in the FIR that the accused have represented to the de-facto complainant that five containers containing imported apples from Turkey is ready for delivery and they have sought Rs.1Crore for the clearance of the same and the amount has been paid through bank transactions. However, neither the apples nor the money was returned. When he found that he was cheated on the ground of imported apple consignment being available at the Madras Harbour, resulted in the complaint. After perusal of the CD files, I find that the documents have also been

¶28

Page 4 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.6337 of 2023

¶31

collected from the Port Trust Harbour and also found that the

¶32

representation made by the accused appears to be bogus.

¶33

Considering the fact that the matter is at preliminary

¶34

stage and since the 2^nd petitioner is found to be a business partner as per the information furnished by the Registrar of Companies and considering the overt act and also the modus-operandi , I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2^nd petitioner.

¶35

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is

dismissed.

13.09.2023

(1/2)

mpl

Page 5 of 6

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

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.6337 of 2023

¶43

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶44

mpl

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.6337 of 2023

¶46

13.09.2023 (1/2)

¶47

Page 6 of 6

¶48

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

K.Aravind v. the State Represented by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Aravind v. the State Represented by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Mathi Vs the State Rep by Its

Johithadhithya Vs the State Rep.by

Trivanna @ Soundaraya Lakshmi Vs the State Rep by

Ashokkumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ramesh Vs K.Aravind

K Dhanasekar Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer