Disposed

Ponvel v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Apr 2024CRL OP(MD)/3373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR for exorbitant interest and criminal intimidation. Noting the police delay in filing the final report since 2021, the court declined to quash and instead directed transfer of investigation to a sincere officer to conduct a fair investigation, and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Investigation transferred from SIPCOT Police Station to another officer with directions for fair investigation; petition and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Ponvel Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3373 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3373 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2685 of 2024

¶7

Ponvel ... Petitioner/Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No.464 of 2021

¶10

2.Arumugam ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.464 of 2021 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same insofaras the petitioner concern.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan

¶13

For R-1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶15

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3373 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.464 of 2021, pending on the file of the first respondent police.

¶18

2.The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.464 of 2021 for the offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 and Section 506(i) of IPC.

¶19

3.The case of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant has given a cheque on 08.09.2021 in bearing No.145862. The petitioner, after issuing a notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, has also filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.40 of 2022 and the defacto complainant has also been convicted in the said cheque case and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defacto complainant filed a false case against the petitioner.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3373 of 2024

¶22

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that the

¶23

cheque case was filed only in the year 2021 and they have also examined four witnesses and they have yet to complete the investigation.

¶24

5.This court considered the rival submissions made.

¶25

6.The defacto complainant has lodged a complaint in the year 2021

¶26

with a serious allegation of demand of exorbitant interest. Though the first respondent police has registered the case in the year 2021, they have not filed the final report. In the meantime, the accused has filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also got an order. This Court is not in a position to appreciate the delay in filing the final report in the present case.

¶27

7.Therefore, this Court directs the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, to transfer the investigation in Crime No.464 of 2021 from the file of the first respondent police to any sincere officer, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The new Investigation Officer shall conduct an investigation in a fair manner by considering the plea raised in this petition and also to find

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3373 of 2024

¶30

out the truth. The process of investigation is to find out the truth. This

¶31

Court expects that a fair investigation will be conducted by the new Investigation Officer.

¶32

8.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

03.04.2024

¶34

sji NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶35

¶36

1.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶37

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶38

Copy to

¶39

The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶41

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3373 of 2024

¶42

B.PUGALENDHI , J.

¶43

sji

¶44

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3373 of 2024

¶45

03.04.2024

¶46

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

Ponvel v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponvel 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

Deivanai Vs The Superintendent of Police

Muthusamy.K Vs The Sub Registrar

V.Ilanchezhiyan Vs The Inspector of Police

C.Karthick Kumar Vs The Superintendent of police

V.Thangadurai Vs The Inspector of Police

Sirumani Vs The Commissioner of Police