Petitioner sought to set aside a police inquiry order dismissing his complaint about alleged loan fraud by partners. The High Court held the dispute was purely civil, dismissed the revision, and directed parties to approach the civil forum.
Criminal revision dismissed; liberty granted to work out remedy through civil forum.
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.
Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2024
C.R.Tamilselvan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, The Office of the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal District.
3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal District. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 28.02.2023 made in CMP.No.1416 of 2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mohan For Respondents : A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to to set aside the order dated 28.02.2023
made in CMP.No.1416 of 2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.
Page 1 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2024
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC) as a shop supervisor. The petitioner and his brother were running a commercial complex namely MRP Commercial Complex near by the TVS Company, Salem Main Road. While so, in the year 2010, one Kamalnathan and his wife Indrani approached them to rent out commercial shop for rent to run their business. Hence, they lent out commercial shop to them for rent and they started the business in the name and style of “Dream House”. By using the above said property, the said Kamalanathan and his wife Indrani, obtained loan in his name for a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from the City Union Bank by pledging his property and the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs.45,00,000/- as his share in the said “Dream House” company which belongs to said Kamalanathan and his wife Indrani.
(ii). Subsequently due to his health condition, the petitioner resigned the partnership firm. When the petitioner asked Kamalanathan and his wife Indrani to get his property document from the bank after repaying the loan, for which, they said that they will arrange the amount for repayment of loan from the money lenders known to them. Thus, they introduced Dr.E.Ramesh Kumar and Dr.R.Ramesh Kumar who are Doctors by profession and also they are lending money upon execution of sale deed in their favour. The said Kamalanathan and Indrani had stated that they will pay the interest regularly to them and adjust the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2024
same in rent dues payable to the petitioner.
(iii). The petitioner also stated that the sale deed will be cancelled and the property will be settled in favour of the petitioner once the entire dues are paid. Believing the said words, the petitioner had executed the sale deed dated 26.06.2019. Thereafter, the said Dr.E.Ramesh Kumar and Dr.R.Ramesh Kumar transferred a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- through RTGS transfer in the petitioner's account. It is pertinent to note that the property worth about Rs.5,00,00,000/-. The said Kamalanathan and Indrani had paid the interest only for seven months and they had defaulted in payment of interest and the said Dr.E.Ramesh Kumar and Dr.R.Ramesh Kumar had asked to repay the entire loan amount along with interest. Later, the petitioner came to know that the said Kamalanathan and Indrani had obtained a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/- from them stating that they will inform the petitioner and pay the interest regularly. Dr.E.Ramesh Kumar and Dr.R.Ramesh Kumar also informed the petitioner to immediately pay the amount of Rs.2,38,85,113/- to them. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.1416 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial
Page 3 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2024
Court ought to have considered the averments without getting into the merits and truth in the petition while exercising the powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and also failed to see that the offense of conspiracy and forgery is made out by the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and explained the fraud committed by the respondents. However, without considering the same, the trial c ourt had simply dismissed the petition, which is wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the revision.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
06.06.2024
Page 4 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order msv
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2024
M.DHANDAPANI . J,
msv
Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2024
06.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should exercise power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate an averment of civil fraud without appreciation of evidence.
Whether the dispute concerning alleged loan fraud has been given a false criminal colour.
Whether the appeal against dismissal of Section 156(3) petition should be allowed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
C.R. Tamilselvan
Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District
Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station
Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
