Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging they received Rs.1.5 crores under a joint venture agreement and failed to hand over agreed flats/shops, demanding further money and settling property with A2. The court held the investigation was at an initial stage and declined to quash, dismissing the petition.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRL.OP No. 11357 of 2022
& Crl.MP. No. 6557 & 6558 of 2022
1 Y.VIMALA BAI 2 KAVITHA
...petitioners
Vs.
1 THE STATE REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE EDF-11 TEAM XXXVII CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH 1 VEPERY CHENNAI 07.
2 KISHORE BAFFNA M/S.VEE PEE HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA NO.30/39 THACKER STREET PURASAWALKAM CHENNAI 600 084.(SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.O.P.NO.11
...Respondents
PRAYER : This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.44 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police
2
and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Mohammed Asif For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Not Appeared for R2
ORDER
The petitioner herein filed this petitionto call for the records in Crime No.44 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Kishore Bafna have entered
into a joint venture agreement and received Rs.1.5 crores for the construction expenses. They specifically agreed to take three flats and one shop, two flats and two shops to the defacto complainant. However, after completion of the construction, they are demanding further sum of Rs.1 crores and also A1 had settled the property in favour of A2. A1 is the mother of A2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there was civil dispute pending between the parties with regard to the same issue despite
they filed the present criminal complaint against the petitioner as such is
3
vexatious one and also submits that no proper witness was collected in this
regard. Prayed to allow this petition.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that earlier complaint against the petitioner was closed. Later they failed to comply the terms of the agreement entered between them and the defacto complainant paid Rs.1.5 crores for construction work but the petitioner failed to hand over the undivided share and failed to comply the terms of the agreement.
5. Considering the facts of the case, the investigation is at initial stage. Hence, this court is not inclined to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is quashed.
03.01.2024
pbl
To The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
pbl
CRL.OP No. 11357 of 2022 & Crl.MP. No. 6557 & 6558 of 2022
1 issue framed by the court
Should the FIR in Crime No.44 of 2022 be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. given a parallel civil dispute over a joint venture agreement?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Y. Vimala Bai
Kavitha
The State rep by Sub Inspector of Police EDF-11 Team XXXVII Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai
Kishore Bafna
T.V. Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
