Disposed

Kumaravel v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jul 2024CRL OP/6094/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging they obtained sale deeds and a power of attorney by misrepresentation to cheat the defacto complainant of land and sale consideration. The court found no apparent element of cheating on the documents but directed police to investigate thoroughly, supervised by the Assistant Commissioner, and file a final report within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; investigation to be completed within two months under ACP Salem supervision and final report filed; stay vacated implicitly; misclosures closed.

Kumaravel Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024

¶7

& Crl.M.P.Nos.4450 & 10344 of 2024

¶8

1. Kumaravel. 2. Amudha. 3. Bharathi.

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3

¶10

/versus/

¶11

1. The Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem City. (Crime No.1498 of 2023). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

2. Kirubalakshmi. ... Respondent/defacto Complainant

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records in Crime No.1498 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem City and quash the same, to secure ends of justice to prevent of abuse of process of law.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vasudevan For R1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.Prasanth Narayanan

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime

¶20

No.1498 of 2023 on the file of Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem.

¶21

2 . This Court, at the time of admission satisfied that it is a civil dispute, therefore stay of investigation of the case was ordered. The defacto complainant has filed application to vacate the stay stating that there is a prima facie material available to investigate the case of cognizable offence.

¶22

3 . The brief facts of the complaint is that the property measuring

¶23

about 1 acre and 10 cents which stood in the name of one Thiyagarajan was settled in favour of his wife Kirubalakshmi on 06.08.2021. Few days later, the said Kirubalakshmi, who is the defacto complainant has alienated around 28 ½ cents of land to 2 nd accused/Amudha, wife of Kumaravel. This sale deed was executed on 12.08.2021 and thereafter, for the remaining land measuring about 81 ½, the said Kirubalakshmi has executed a Power of Attorney deed dated

¶24

13.08.2021 in favour of the Kumaravel and on the strength of the said Power of

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024

¶28

Attorney, Kumaravel has executed the sale deed in favour of his wife/Amudha on 04.08.2022 for consideration of Rs.40 lakhs. While record speaks so, the complainant alleges that the accused Kumaravel and his wife/Amudha are her relatives. Since her husband is visually challenged, to meet out his medical expenses, she borrowed around Rs.12.5 lakhs from said Kumaravel. For discharging the debt under the protest of raising loan, the sale deed dated 12.08.2021 and the Power of Attorney deed dated 13.08.2021 was obtained and thereafter, without her consent and knowledge, the balance 81 ½ cents of land was alienated to Amudha by Kumaravel. The Power of Attorney deed obtained by misrepresentation been misused with criminal intention of cheating.

¶29

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024 submitted that the complaint is clear case of abuse of process of law. A civil transaction of the property been given criminal colour to extract money. While the defacto complainant had alienated the property after receiving due consideration initially, gave a complaint to the police and same was closed as civil dispute. Again she forwarded the complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police that was also enquired and closed and later she gave complaint to the District Registrar questioning the registration of the Power of

¶30

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024

¶32

Attorney and the sale deed, that was also enquired and closed. While so, the third complaint to the Commissioner of Police was forwarded to the SubInspector of Police, for investigation and same been registered in Crime No.1498 of 2023. It is a clear case of Forum Shopping by repeatedly giving complaint to one Officer and another in spite of closure of the complaint as mistake of fact, after due investigation.

¶33

5 . This Court, after considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsels and on perusal of the record finds that the sale deeds and Power of Attorney apparently does not disclose any misrepresentation or element of cheating. However, it is appropriate for the police to investigate the matter thoroughly in the manner known to law and conclude the investigation based on the information and material collected since the complainant alleges that she was not paid with the sale consideration and the Power of Attorney was obtained in favour of Kumaravel by misrepresentation.

¶34

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024

¶36

6 . With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶37

disposed of. The respondent police shall complete the investigation within a period of two months and file final report. The investigation may be supervised by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Salem. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶38

23.07.2024

¶39

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bsm

¶40

To,

¶41

1. The Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem City. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶42

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024

¶44

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶45

bsm

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.6094 of 2024

¶47

23.07.2024

¶48

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Kumaravel v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaravel v. the Inspector of Police

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

T.Vijayaragavan Vs K.Subramanian

L.P.Rajasekar Vs the District Collector

Rajeev Vs the State Rep by

Mohamed Ismail Vs State through

Viknesh Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Mohan Vs the State Rep by