Partly allowed

D.Manivannan v. the State Rep by, Its

Madras HC10 Nov 2023CRL OP/7918/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two Criminal Original Petitions concerning a fraud case involving alleged forgery and cheating, the High Court held that the nature of the dispute must be tested by the police. The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, while the petition for expedited investigation was granted a six-month timeline.

What did the court decide?

Crl.O.P. No.15170 of 2022 for quashing dismissed. Crl.O.P. No.7918 of 2023 for expedited investigation allowed with six months timeline for final report.

D.Manivannan Vs the State Rep by, Its — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated:10.11.2023

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.7918 of 2023 and Crl.O.P.No.15170 of 2022

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.7918 of 2023: Mr.D.Manivannan, Male aged 56 years, Proprietor of M/s D.Manivannan and Co., No.T/D-95, Anna Fruits Market, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

/versus/

¶10

1.The State represented by its The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, E.D.F-I, (Team-1), No.132, E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

2.Mr.A.Suresh

3.Mrs.S.Eswari

4.Mr.R.Sridharan

5.Mr.Prakash

1/8

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶18

6.Mr.Subramani

¶19

.. Respondents

¶20

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1^st respondent police to expedite the investigation pending in Crime No.211 of 2022 and to file appropriate final report within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhakaran For Respondents :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.15170 of 2022:

1.Mr.A.Suresh

2.Mrs.S.Eswari

.. Petitioners

/versus/

1.The State represented by its The Additional Commissioner of Police/ The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-1, Office of Commissioner of Police, No.132, E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. (Ref.Crime No.211/2021)

¶28

2.Mr.D.Manivannan,

¶29

Proprietor of M/s D.Manivannan and Co., No.T/D-95, Anna Fruits Market, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. .. Respondents

¶30

2/8

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶33

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.211 of 2021 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Vepery, Chennai, the first respondent herein, quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶34

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Kumara Rajan For Respondents :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr. G.Prabhakaran for R2

¶35

COMMON ORDER

¶36

Criminal Original Petition No.7918 of 2023 has been filed to direct the 1^st respondent police to expedite the investigation pending in Crime No.211 of 2022 and to file appropriate final report within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶37

Criminal Original Petition No.15170 of 2022 has been filed to call for

¶38

the records in Crime No.211 of 2021 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Vepery, Chennai, the first respondent herein and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶39

3/8

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶42

The tenor of the complaint indicates that the petitioner (A1) induced the defacto complainant to invest his money in the business. Initially, projected him as a Chairman of High Seas Coal and Minerals Pvt. Limited, Indonesia and thereafter, promised him to take him as a partner in the Real Estate Business. Believing his words, he initially, paid Rs.3 crores promising to return it twice the amount. Again, a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/was borrowed by him for his urgent needs to purchase a property at Anna Nagar measuring around 5000 sq.ft. by showing forged documents as if the Anna Nagar property is under his disposal and by alienating the property, they can earn several crores of rupees. It was induced to earn money with promise of high return including 2.25% interest per month. It is alleged that the money was transferred through bank and the statement of accounts clearly show that the accused taken away the money from him by inducing and dishonestly failed to pay the money. When he insisted for repayment, Rs.6,75,000/- each was paid in four instalments and for balance he was evading. The claim of the 1^st petitioner that he owns High Seas Coal and

¶43

4/8

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶46

Minerals Pte Limited at Indonesia and have huge investment and assets were found to be false and fake. MoU entered was destroyed by them. So that, he cannot make any lawful claim for the money. Three cheques given by them for settlement also returned with memos indicating 'payment stop'. Thus, from the inception the petitioners were acting dishonestly to cheat the defacto complainant and hence, this complaint has been registered in crime No.211 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 and 120B IPC.

¶47

The petitioners contended that it is purely a civil transaction where a sum of Rs.3 crores was borrowed and promised to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 2.25% per month. Almost Rs.1.75 crores was repaid but creating documents as if loan for Rs.8.24 crores advanced and nearly 7.84 crores is balance, complaint has been fabricated and lodged. In this regard, the complainant proceeded under the arbitration act, which was clearly indicate that the dispute is purely civil in nature.

¶48

5/8

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶51

Through counter, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the documents produced by the petitioners herein to induce him for investing in the proposals of the petitioner were later found to be forged and with dishonest intention having induced the defacto complainant to part away the huge sum of money. Now, the petitioners are conveniently claims that it is a civil dispute, inspite of evidence available regarding forgery of documents and manipulation of statement of accounts.

¶52

The learned counsel appearing on either side have made an elaborative arguments and produced several documents for perusal of the Court.

¶53

The very submission on either side clearly shows that it is not a

¶54

matter where the mini trial conducted by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and quash the FIR. The police is a competent authority to hear,

¶55

6/8

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶58

test and decide about the veracity of the claim. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition to quash is dismissed.

¶59

The Criminal Original Petition filed for expedite trial is

¶60

considered and taking note of the voluminous documents involved and territory which the investigation is to be done, 6 months time is granted to the investigation agency to complete the investigation and file the final report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶61

10.11.2023

¶62

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/non speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No ari

¶63

¶64

1.The Additional Commissioner of Police/The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-1,Office of Commissioner of Police, No.132, E.V.K.Sampath Salai,Vepery, Chennai 600 007. (Ref.Crime No.211/2021)

¶65

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶66

7/8

¶67

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

¶68

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶69

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶70

ari

¶71

Crl.O.P.Nos.7918 of 2023 and 15170 of 2022

¶72

10.11.2023

¶73

8/8

¶74

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

D.Manivannan v. the State Rep by, Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Manivannan v. the State Rep by, Its

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

Dhanalakshmi Vs T.v.Sathyanarayanan

Sheejamary Vs Inspector of Police

Kamesh Mathew Vs the State Rep by Its

G.Manikandan Vs the Commissioner of Police

Senthamarai Vs the State Rep by Its

R.Mathanagopal Vs the Superintendent of Police