Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 1731
2011 (2) LW(Cri) 227
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G.M. AKBAR ALI
P.L. Meenakshi Sundram
Versus
The State rep by The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch & Another
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 28-03-2011
For the Petitioner:M.K. Kabir, Senior Cournsel for S. Sivakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, S. Rajakumar, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side), R2, S.D. Venkateswaran, R. Vijayakumar, Advocates.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the prima facie allegations and exercising the power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Proceedings - Sec.120-b, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC - 102 of Bhajanlal's case - Sec.482 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a case registered against them for alleged offences under Sec.120-b, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 120-B IPC. The dispute related to property transactions and allegations of fraud and cheating.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the allegations and legal principles, finding that the petitioner did not have a dishonest intention at the beginning and had not played a role in forging any document. The court also considered relevant legal precedents and held that the proceedings should be quashed at the inception as it would be an abuse of process of law.
Issues: Allegations of fraud and cheating, abuse of process of law, applicability of legal precedents
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in the celebrated case of State of Haryana and Others vs Bhajanlal and others, and other relevant legal precedents to determine that the proceedings should be quashed at the inception as it would be an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition was allowed, and the proceedings in Cr.No.67 of 2004 pending on the file of the respondent police were quashed.
1. By consent of both sides, the petition has been taken up for final hearing. The petition has been filed seeking a direction to call for the records in Cr.No.67 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
2. The 2nd respondent has given a complaint dated 30.12.2004 against 11 named accused for an alleged offence under Sec.120-b, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and a case has been registered by the 1st respondent in Cr.No.67 of 2004 and it is pending investigation.
3. The complaint relates to a property in S.No.4/1 situated Anuparpalayam village, Coimbatore to an extent of 32 cents and another property in S.No.490/2 of Seerapalayam of an extent of 1.97 acres. The petitioner entered into sale agreements with one Kalaiselvan who is the power of attorney of one Velumani who is the father of the complainant. The said sale deeds were cancelled vide documents dated 21.6.2004 and 20.8.2004. The said Kalaiselvan sold the property to various individuals. However, the defacto-complainant, who is the son of the original owner of the property has given the present complaint and the sum and substance of the complaint is that the petitioner, the said Kalaiselvan and various other persons have created forged and fraudulent documents and they have dishonestly cheated and has taken away valuable property.
4. According to the petitioner one Velumani and his two brothers K.venkatesan and K. Swaminathan were partners of a Company named The New City Engineering Company. Later, it was registered as a Company under the Companies Act. In 1987, the Company became defunct and there were more than 100 employees, whose salaries were not paid. Apart from the dues, the Company became liable to pay huge amount to State Bank of India. There was a negotiation between the parties and a tripartite agreement was entered on 28.2.2004. Pursuant to which, it was agreed to sell the property and appropriate the sale consideration towards the amount payable to the employees and also to the Bank.
5. Mr.M.K. Kabir, learned senior counsel who appeared for Mr.S. Shivakumar would submit that the petitioner had advanced huge amounts for settlement of disputes and therefore, the said Kalaiselvan, being the power of attorney of the father of the defacto-complainant, executed two sale agreements and later they were cancelled. The learned counsel also pointed out that the said Kalaiselvan sold the properties to various persons and that being so, the petitioner has been arrayed as A.1 on the complaint given by the defacto-complainant alleging fraud and cheating. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alienation of the property and registration of FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the various documents and agreements between the parties.
6. Per contra, Mr.S.D. Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the prime accused and forged and fraudulent general power of attorney was created at the instigation of the petitioner by the said Kalaiselvan. The learned counsel drew the attention of this court to a confession statement given by the said Kalaiselvan before a judicial Magistrate and submitted that the prima-facie allegations strengthened with the statement would constitute serious offence against the petitioner and the investigation has to be allowed to be continued for its logical conclusion. The learned counsel produced statement of the said Kalaiselvan given under Sec.164 Cr.P.C dated 2.11.2010.
7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions for the following ratios:
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana and Others vs Bhajan Lal and others)
2008 (12) SCC 531 (George Pentaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others)
RATIO: Where allegations made in the FIR or complaint do not prima facie make out a case or disclose a cognizable offence or Commissin of any offence, and or observed inh
