Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Mad) 3372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Sundar Iyer - Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - Team I & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 23877 of 2016 & Crl. M.P. No. 11354 of 2016
Decided On : 08-11-2016IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Sundar Iyer - Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - Team I & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 23877 of 2016 & Crl. M.P. No. 11354 of 2016
Decided On : 08-11-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Ramesh, Sr. Counsel for Mr. S. Karthikeyan.
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that premature quashing of an FIR is not justified, and the FIR is not an exhaustive account of the prosecution case.

Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Property Dispute - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66-D - [IPC, IT Act] - The court discussed the abuse of process of law in a property dispute involving allegations of creating false records for usurping company property. The court highlighted the interpretation of the law in quashing FIRs and emphasized that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the prosecution case, and premature to stifle the investigation by quashing the FIR.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a property dispute within a company, where the petitioner sought to quash the FIR filed under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint was not withdrawn due to lack of misfeasance but due to external pressure, and the FIR was not quashed as it was premature to stifle the investigation. The court directed the police to monitor the investigation and drop charges if the petitioner was found not to have colluded with the other accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the withdrawal of the complaint, abuse of process of law, and the premature nature of quashing the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the prosecution case and premature to stifle the investigation by quashing the FIR.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police was directed to monitor the investigation and drop charges against the petitioner if found not to have colluded with the other accused.

ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Cr. No.169/2016 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team - I, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007 for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

3. On the complaint dated 04.02.2015 given by one Chandramouli (de facto complainant/second respondent herein), the first respondent police registered a case on 24.06.2016 in Cr. No.169 of 2016 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 66(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against Krishnasamy (A1), A.V.M. Sundaram (A2) and Sundar Iyer (A3), for quashing which, Sundar Iyer (A3) is before this Court.

4. Shorn of the minute details, the facts germane and necessary for deciding this case are as under:

4.1 Twenty First Century Realty Limited (for brevity “the company”) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act in which Chandramouli is one of the Directors. The main object of the company is to invest by selling and dealing with properties and the company was not carrying on any business activity. Yet, the company purchased immovable property on 15.02.1996 by way of three registered sale deeds, in Hyderabad, which is of a huge value and therefore, is a cause of internecine warfare between Chandramouli, on the one side and Krishnasamy (A1), A.V.M. Sundaram (A2) and Sundar Iyer (A3/petitioner), on the other side.

4.2 It is the allegation of Chandramouli that the accused had manipulated records to increase their shareholding in the company for usurping the property. In the complaint, Chandramouli has specifically alleged that Krishnasamy (A1) had fraudulently applied for a digital signature in the name of Chandramouli without his approval on 05.08.2013. For applying the digital signature, Krishnasamy (A1) and A.V.M. Sundaram (A2) fraudulently created a new email id for Chandramouli as jcmouli@yahoo.com, whereas, Chandramouli's actual email id is moulijc@yahoo.com. Thereafter, Krishnasamy (A1) and A.V.M. Sundaram (A2) appointed themselves as Directors of the company. On coming to know of this, the Board of Directors of the company removed Krishnasamy (A1) and A.V.M. Sundaram (A2) from the Board by passing a resolution in the Extraordinary General Meeting on 29.08.2013. Thereafter, Krishnasamy (A1) and A.V.M. Sundaram (A2) downloaded documents pertaining to the company from the website of the Registrar of Companies and took photographs of the construction site at Hyderabad in December 2013 and they set up Sundar Iyer (A3/petitioner) and his wife Vanaja Sundar to file a complaint to the Registrar of Companies against the Directors alleging various illegal acts. Chandramouli and other Directors submitted their explanation to the Registrar of Companies, explaining the illegal acts that were committed by Krishnasamy (A1) and A.V.M. Sundaram (A2). Notwithstanding that, Sundar Iyer (A3/petitioner) and his wife Vanaja Sundar filed a petition in C.P. No.21 of 2014 before the Company Law Board, Chennai against the company and its Directors, including Chandramouli, making various allegations. When Chandramouli received the notice, he was shocked to learn from the averments in the petition that Krishnasamy (A1) and A.V.M. Sundaram (A2) have been shown as Directors of the company.

4.3 The sum and substance of the allegation in the complaint is that Krishnasamy (A1), A.V.M. Sundaram (A2) and Sundar Iyer (A3/petitioner) are creating false records for grabbing the property of the company. Hence, the FIR.

5. Heard Mr. A. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sundar Iyer (A3/petitioner) and Mr. C. Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent State.

6. Mr. A. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sundar Iyer (A3/petitioner) submitted that Chandramouli had ea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(Mad) 3372

The main legal point established in the judgment is that premature quashing of an FIR is not justified, and the FIR is not an exhaustive account of the prosecution case.

Cases Referred (5)