Dismissed

K.Radha v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Feb 2024CRL OP/7514/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a charge sheet in a loan fraud case. The petitioner argued she was falsely implicated despite acknowledging the breach. The court found no irregularity in the charge sheet given the gravity of the offence and the prosecution's evidence of forgery.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC dismissed with liberty to approach the trial court.

K.Radha Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.7514 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.7514 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4296 & 4297 of 2022

K.Radha

... Petitioner

Versus

State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-V, Vepery, Chennai-7. (Crime No.106 of 2018)

¶11

K.V.Subramanian, The Deputy General Manager (HRM), The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Page No.1 of 7

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.7514 of 2022

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No. 144 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for CCB and CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.V.Devendhiran for R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 144 of 2022 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for CCB and CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai.

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

Page No.2 of 7

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.7514 of 2022

¶24

Totally, there are three accused involved in the case. The petitioner is ranked as A2 in the F.I.R. in Crime No.106 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sec.420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.144 of 2022 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for CCB and CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai and the same is pending. Now, the petitioner had filed this petition praying to quash the said charge sheet.

¶25

The case of prosecution is that in the year of 2007, A1 started a company named M/s. Sree Vengatachalapathi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. to manufacture electric poles, conductors, distribution transformers and pillar boxes etc. For the purpose of business, A1, being the contractor of TANGEDCO, he has obtained a loan from Tamil Nadu Industrial Corporation Ltd. under the Bill Finance Scheme and the same was regularly paid by A1 via instalment basis. While being so, in the year of 2012, A1 got acquainted with one Jeyaraj and he became one of the director in the aforesaid company by investing a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/-.

¶26

Page No.3 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.7514 of 2022

¶29

However, due to financial crisis, A1 without the knowledge of other directors of the said company, had fabricated 55 K2 agreement Bill and invoice, furnished the same and obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.18,35,15,215/-, out of which, A1 failed to return the sum of Rs.9,73,50,000/- to the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant. So, on nonrecovery of certain bills of A1, a special audit was undertaken by the internal audit department of Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., and on verifying the same, it was revealed that 55 bills were forged by fabricating bar codes and obtained loan from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.8 crores. Hence, the complaint.

¶30

The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that she has

¶31

been falsely implicated in this case by the 1^st respondent police as per the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant. In fact, even though any bills were fabricated, those bills were approved by A1 for obtaining loan and she has not forged any such bills as alleged by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant. Hence, no stretch of imagination can be

¶32

Page No.4 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.7514 of 2022

¶35

averred against the petitioner that she had approved the bills without verifying genuineness of bills and she is only empowered to disburse the loan. Accordingly, she verified the bills and granted loan, except that she has no other role with respect to alleged fabrication. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings for the charge of Sec.420 of I.P.C. and there is no malafide intention on her part.

¶36

By way of reply, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for 1^st respondent would submit that all the three accused are involved in the offence of causing loss to Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., by granting loan to A1 based on the fabricated invoices and bills.

¶37

Records perused. According to the prosecution, nearly about 51

¶38

bills were forged out of 117 bills and with regard to forgery, the prosecution is empowered to adduce evidence and the learned Government Advocate also submitted that they are having material evidence to prove the same. So, with regard to forgery, before the trial

¶39

Page No.5 of 7

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.7514 of 2022

¶42

court, both parties are entitled to adduce evidence. On considering the gravity of offence, I do not find any irregularity in the charge sheet initiated by the 1^st respondent police and this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the trial court. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶43

02.02.2024

¶44

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpp

¶45

¶46

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-V, Vepery, Chennai-7..

¶47

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶48

Page No.6 of 7

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.7514 of 2022

¶51

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶52

rpp

¶53

CRL.O.P.No.7514 of 2022

¶54

02.02.2024

¶55

Page No.7 of 7

¶56

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

K.Radha v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Radha 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

Viswanathan Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Offcier (I/C)

Sundaramoorthy Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer (I/C)

S.Balamurali Vs State Rep by

Harish Vs the Inspector of Police

Raja Basha Vs State Rep by

Sornamugi Vs Inspector of Police