Dismissed

Kishore Prabhu v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Jan 2024CRL OP/7071/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a charge sheet for cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from an alleged Rs.44 lakh business investment. The court held repayment claims require detailed evidence and cannot be decided at this stage; defence is open at trial.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed, connected miscellaneous petition closed, liberty to raise defences before trial Court.

Kishore Prabhu Vs Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.01.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.4030 of 2022

Kishore Prabhu

... Petitioner

Versus

1.State rep. by Inspector of Police, K-3, Aminjakarai Police Station, Chennai 600 029.

¶11

2.M.Nagoor ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for entire records in C.C.No.7093 of 2021 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crime No.709 of 2021 on the file of 1st respondent police and quash the Charge sheet.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh

¶14

For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶15

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

¶16

1\6

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition to call for entire records in C.C.No.7093 of 2021 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crime No.709 of 2021 on the file of 1st respondent police and quash the Charge sheet.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is close acquaintance with accused who is tenant and pastor in Seventh Day Church since 2018. The accused had approached the defacto complainant and offered to do business with him in Seventh Day Church School project work for which accused asked to invest amount to get profit for every 45 days and the profit amount will be share equally between them. On believing his words, the defacto complainant had given cash to the tune of Rs.44,10,000/- for business purpose on various occasions from 02.10.2018 to 15.10.2020 but the accused had not returned any profit and cheated the entire amount and absconded on 06.03.2021 from his house.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

¶22

doing small scale business and the defacto complainant had invested amount in his business and shared profit equally between them though bank and cash

¶23

till 2020 but the defacto complainant had lodged false complaint against the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2\6

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2022

¶26

petitioner to get ex-orbitant profit using his influence in bereft of any truth. He further submitted that the respondent police had not conducted any preliminary enquiry for commercial transaction, without following the guidelines of Lalitha Kumari case had registered FIR as well as the charge sheet against the petitioner is against law of land. He also further submitted that there are no ingrediants of far as Section 406 and 420 of IPC Act, and it has no essence to attract any Sections of IPC as alleged against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to quash the proceeding in Crime No.709 of 2021 on the file of 1st respondent police.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that as per the investigation, on believing the words of the petitioner, the defacto complainant had given a sum of Rs.44,10,000/- for business purpose on various occasions from 02.10.2018 to 15.10.2020 but the petitioner / accused had not returned any profit and cheated the entire amount. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, FIR has been registered in Crime No.709 of 2021 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC Act and the charge sheet also filed in CC.No.7093 of 2021 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶28

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

¶29

3\6

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2022

¶31

Considering both side submission and the facts reveals that originally the petitioner / accused have money transaction from the defacto complainant. Now the petitioner repaid the entire amount which already borrowed. But as per the complaint, stating that he gave false promise and obtained money for the defacto complainant which comes around Rs.44 lakhs, if at all, the said amount was repaid by the petitioner / accused he has to prove the same, which needs detail evidence, mere Bank statement is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner repaid the alleged amount at this stage.

¶32

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all the defence before the trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶34

03.01.2024

¶35

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri

¶36

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

¶37

4\6

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2022

¶39

¶40

1.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶41

2.The Inspector of Police, K-3, Aminjakarai Police Station, Chennai 600 029.

¶42

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶43

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

¶44

5\6

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2022

¶46

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶47

rri

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.4030 of 2022

¶49

03.01.2024

¶50

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

¶51

6\6

Kishore Prabhu v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Prabhu v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aravind Vs State by

P.Sundar Vs State Rep by

T. Dubash Shankar @ Shankar Vs Union of India

Y.Vimala Bai Vs the State Rep by

A.Karunakaran Vs Nissar Ahamed

L.N.Iyyapane Vs Muruganantham