Attempt on part of accused is sine qua non for offence under Section 511 I.P.C.

This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order, dated 26.04.2004 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2004 in S.C.No.292 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / FTC No.III, Coimbatore.

2. It is seen that the petitioner herein Tmt.Pathirammal filed a private complaint against the respondents 1 to 3 / accused before the fourth respondent under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the alleged offence under Section 306 r/w 511 IPC and under Sections 4 and 9 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance, 2003 and Sections 4 and 9 of the said ordinance r/w Section 511 IPC.

.3. The petitioner and her husband Thimmayan had borrowed amount from the respondents 1 to 3. The husband of the petitioner herein had borrowed loan from them on 03.04.2000. According to her, she had entrusted certain documents relating to the property to the respondents 1 to 3 towards security for the amount borrowed. She had also entered into an agreement for the sale of property with the second respondent for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1,50,000/- and also executed power of attorney authorizing 3rd respondent to sell the property on her behalf. Subsequently, the same was sold by the third respondent to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, she had discharged the loan on 25.05.2001, but the respondents did not return the documents entrusted to them and that the respondent 1 to 3 were threatening the petitioner with dare consequences, apart from that the respondents 1 to 3 are inducing the petitioner to commit suicide, if the amount is not repaid. It is seen from the records that the court below after receiving the evidence of the husband of the petitioner herein, Thimmaiyan (P.W.1) and two other witnesses committed the case before the court of Sessions at Coimbatore under Section 209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court / FTC No.III, Coimbatore for trial. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it was pleaded before the trial court that no prima facie case has been made out against them and pleaded for discharge.

4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge / FTC No.III, Coimbaotre, after considering the arguments advance by both sides and the materials available before the court, has held that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who were accused in the said case and accordingly, discharged them from the case, against which, this Criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioner herein.

5. On a perusal of the case records, it is seen that the revision petitioner / complainant never entered into the witness box to depose her case, for the reasons best known to her.

.6. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is only a civil dispute between the petitioner herein and her husband on the one side and the respondents 1 to 3 on the other side. The petitioner has admitted that Thimmaiyan had borrowed money from the respondents 1 to 3 herein and she had entered into an agreement for the sale of property to the second respondent, for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-and received an advance of Rs.1,50,000/-and also executed power of attorney, authorizing the third respondent to sell the property on her behalf. Based on the power of attorney, the third respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the second respondent. Though the petitioner has stated that the amount borrowed by her was returned back, for which no evidence has been produced. Though the revision petitioner / complainant has stated that she was induced by the respondents to commit suicide, for which there is no evidence, even the petitioner has not deposed any evidence to establish the allegation leveled against the respondents herein.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that the charges framed against the respondents under Section 306 r/w 511 IPC and under Se