Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 354
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. MATHIVANAN
R. Vasanthi Stanley
Versus
State Rep by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch & Others
Crl.O.P.No.14759 to 14762 of 2011
Decided on : 24-01-2012
For the Appearing Parties:Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Mr. C. Iyyappa Raj, Govt. Adv.(Crl. Side), M/s. Ganesh & Ganesh, Mr. V. Adhivarahan, Mr. P. Sreenivasulu, Advocates.
The settlement of dues and issuance of no due certificates can be grounds for quashing criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34, 465 r/w 120(B) I.P.C. - Summary Settlement of Dues - No Due Certificates - Abuse of Process of Law
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings against her for alleged involvement in fraudulent loan transactions carried out by her deceased husband. The petitioner contended that she was unaware of her husband's transactions and had settled all dues with the banks after his demise.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a co-applicant, had signed loan documents and undertaken financial obligations. The prosecution argued that the petitioner could not claim ignorance and was liable to repay the loans. The banking authorities issued no due certificates after the petitioner settled the dues.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed considering the settlement of dues and issuance of no due certificates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents such as Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and State of Karnataka vs. L.Muneswamy to determine that the continuance of prosecution after settlement of dues would be futile and an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
1. Seeking the relief of quashing the criminal proceedings in the cases in C.C.Nos.1624 of 2010, 5668 of 2010, 6258 of 2010 and 11697 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai respectively, these four criminal original petitions have been filed by the petitioner after invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. With the petitioner in all the criminal original petitions is one and the same, the subject matter which is in issue in all the criminal original petitions is common in nature and the first respondent Police is also one and the same, all these criminal original petitions are clubbed together, heard simultaneously and disposed of in this common order.
3. The facts, which led the petitioner to file these petitions are as under:
3.1. One Stanley P.Rajan is the husband of the petitioner herein. He had availed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as home loan from M/s.Centurion Bank (Bank of Punjab Ltd.,) later merged with H.D.F.C.Bank, for the development of his company under the name and style of 'Medicraffs Drugs' and availed another sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the Bank of India, Cathedral Road Branch.
3.2. Besides this, he had also availed a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- from Vijaya Bank, G.N.Chetty Road Branch for the development of his company and Rs.12,00,000/-from Syndicate Bank, Mylapore Branch for the renovation of his house. In security thereof he had deposited the title deeds of his housing property.
3.3. It is significant to note here that the petitioner herein, who is none other than the wife of the said Stanley P.Rajan stood as co-applicant for all the loans availed by her husband. On verification, the banking authorities had found that the documents viz.the title deeds deposited by Stanley P.Rajan were fabricated and the property was also found to be mortgaged with M/s.Sundaram Home Finance for the loan taken. As the liability was not discharged the respective banking authorities have lodged complaints before the first respondent Police for taking criminal action against the said Stanley P.Rajan and the petitioner viz.R.Vasanthi Stanley and other two accused, who also stood as co-applicants.
3.4. Based on the complaints of the banking authorities, the first respondent Police has registered the cases in X.Cr.No.579/2006 under Sections 420 r/w 34, 467 r/w 34, 468 r/w 34, 471 r/w 468 and 34, 467, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 109 I.P.C., X.Cr.No.643/2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 465 r/w 120(B) I.P.C., X.Cr.No.550/2006 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) I.P.C., and Cr.No.206/2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467 and 120(B).
4. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent has laid the final reports before the above said Courts and the respective Courts have also taken the final report on their respective files as C.C.Nos.1624 of 2010, 5668 of 2010, 6258 of 2010 and 11697 of 2010. In C.C.Nos.1624 and 11697 of 2010, the petitioner herein has been ranked as A2, whereas in C.C.Nos.5668 and 6258 of 2010, the petitioner has been ranked as A1.
5. Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not aware of any transactions done by her husband and since she was working as a public servant she was not aware of any business activities involved by her husband. He has also submitted that the petitioner had signed the documents as instructed by her husband without any intention or knowledge and even as per the prosecution cases there were no specific allegations against the petitioner saying that she had signed the loan applications intentionally and thereby cheated the complainant Banks.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner's husband namely Stanley P.Rajan had passed away and after the demise of her husband the petitioner had come to know th
