SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Singanamala Ramesh Babu – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 10215 of 2015 & Crl. M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 16-10-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M. Kempraj, Advocate.
For the Respmdents:R1, C. Iyyappa Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2, P. Ravishankar, Advocates.

The main legal point established is that the police should not act as a collection/recovery agent for commercial transactions, and that the criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Sections 406, 420, 506(i) and 120(b) IPC - [Inder Mohan Goswami and another Versus State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, Paramjeet Batra Versus State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and others etc., Versus State of Gujarat and another etc., in Criminal Appeal Nos.251-252 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.142-143 of 2019), Sushil Sethi and another Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others in Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2020 (Arising from SLP(Crl.)No.590 of 2019), Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Versus State of Gujarat and another in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.)No.5223 of 2018]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner is accused of offenses under Sections 406, 420, 506(i) and 120(b) IPC for alleged financial transactions. The complainant, the 2nd respondent, claimed to have lent money to the petitioner, who failed to repay and allegedly threatened the complainant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dispute between the parties constituted a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong. It observed that the police should not act as a collection/recovery agent for commercial transactions and that the criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta.

Issues: The main issue was whether the financial dispute between the parties constituted a civil or criminal wrong, and whether the criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute was predominantly a civil dispute and that the criminal case was based on the same demand promissory notes as the civil proceedings. It emphasized that the inability to return the loan amount did not automatically give rise to criminal prosecution.

Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR in Crime No.70 of 2015 pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police, allowing the petition and closing the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records and quash the proceedings in FIR No.70 of 2015 pending before the 1st respondent, on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB, EDF-I, Team-II, Vepery, Chennai-7 with respect to accused.)

1. The petitioner/accused in Crime No.70 of 2015, pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police, for offence under Sections 406, 420, 506(i) and 120(b) IPC, has filed the quash petition.

2. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant viz., V.G.B.Sivaram Prasad lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent that he is a business man, doing business in the name of M/s.Sri Vijayalakshmi Ice Factory at No.7/50, South West Boagh, T.Nagar, Chennai and having residence in the same place. During March 2007, the petitioner represented through his common friend V.Radha Narasimha Rao that the petitioner is doing finance business at D5, Vaisalai Apartment, No.17, Dr.Nair Road, T.Nagar, Chennai for many years and he is in need of money of Rs.75 lakhs for his business and promised that it would be returned back within 5 months. Believing the words till October 2007, the 2nd respondent paid a sum of Rs.55 lakhs to the petitioner by way of cash and cheque. On receipt of the same, the petitioner assured that he will give back the money within five months and also represented that he was having many properties at T.Nagar, Porur, OMR-Poonjeri Village, Vaisahvakkan, Hyderabad. During March 2008, the 2nd respondent approached the petitioner and asked for return of his money Rs.55 lakhs, the petitioner promised to repay the amount within short time, but he did not do so.

3. Further, the petitioner made request for money of Rs.45 lakhs and promised that both earlier borrowings and the money received now would be repaid within six months. Believing the words, the 2nd respondent paid another Rs.45 lakhs during February and April 2008. Thereafter, when the 2nd respondent approached the petitioner for return of money, the petitioner evaded the payment and the 2nd respondent regularly visited the office and residence of the petitioner, but whenever he approached, the petitioner was giving one reason or other, dragging and evading repayment of debts.

4. The petitioner informed that one of his properties would be sold and repayment would be made. During October 2014, when the 2nd respondent approached the petitioner in his office along with his friend V.Radha Narasimha Rao and sought return of Rs.1.75 crores the amount due from the petitioner, he refused to return the money and threatened the 2nd respondent with his body guards. Hence, the 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the 1st respondent, against which, the present quash petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent gave a complaint on 21.02.2015 for the alleged transaction taken place during October 2007. The learned counsel further submitted that for the payment made by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner handed over partly filled blank Demand Promissory Notes, during the period of 2007-2008. The petitioner repaid sums of money, which was not duly credited. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner instead of invoking civil jurisdiction for recovery of alleged sum, on the other hand with the help of one Mohan, who is working as Section Officer in Prevention and Detection Section, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai, the 2nd respondent threatened the petitioner on 10.01.2015 along with the said V.Radha Narasimha Rao, who is the friend of the 2nd respondent. On the same day, a letter was sent by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent about the incident. Similar complaint was sent to the Chief Minister's Cell; Director General of Police; the Commissioner of Police; Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, T.Nagar; Assistant Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Greater Chennai; Inspector of Police, R1 Mambalam Police Station and Inspector of Police,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top