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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
Anish Jai – Petitioner
Versus
The State Rep. the by Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 19703 of 2021, Crl. M.P. No. 10753 of 2021
Decided On : 14-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. Shyam Srinivasan.
For the Respondents: A. Gopinath, C. Senapathi.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – First Information Report – Saving of inherent power of High Court – Cheating and Dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Criminal Original Petition has been preferred to quash proceedings in FIR file first respondent police – Petitioner is first accused in above complaint in FIR registered for offences – Held, Court appropriate to direct first respondent investigating agency to complete investigation within a period of three months and file final report not a case which does not have any materials to make out a case against this petitioner at this stage – Court convinced to quash proceedings against petitioner – Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

ORDER :

Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for records relating to the First Information Report No. 13 of 2021, dated 14.05.2021, on the file of the 1st respondent Police Station, Viz. The District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram and quash the same.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred to quash the proceedings in FIR in Cr. No. 13 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in the above complaint in FIR in Cr.No. 13/2021 dated 14.05.21 registered for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the manager of the HDFC Bank, Sriperumbudur branch, Kanchipuram. He has given a complaint by stating that the petitioner is a customer of that branch and he is holding a bank account there for his company by name Yardstick Entertainment (P) Ltd. A company by name The Alufit India Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore has issued a cheque for Rs. 3,90,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner's company and that has been transacted through the defacto complainant's bank and the amount has been credited in the petitioner's company account. Subsequently the petitioner had transferred a sum of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- through RTGS to an another account in AXIS bank vide account No. 920020064756414. The petitioner had also transferred another sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- through RTGS to his another company by name ASCENTEC Info Solutions Indian Bank in Account No. 6150256059. But it was found out later that the cheque was a dubious one and the original was with The Alufit India Pvt. Ltd. itself. Immediately thereafter the transactions were stopped by the bank authorities. The accounts at Indian Bank and AXIS bank were also blocked. Even before that the account was blocked and a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-from AXIS bank was transferred to the account No. 38505500726 lying with ICICI bank, Velachery Branch. From the said bank a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- was transferred to the account at Syndicate Bank. It was informed to the petitioner that the cheque presented by him was a fake cheque. Based on this complaint, a case has been registered in Cr. No. 13/2021 on the file of the first respondent police for the above said offences.

4. Heard the submissions made by either side learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is one of the directors of M/s. Yardstick Entertainment (P) Ltd. the second and third accused are the imperia relationship manager and operation manager of the HDFC Bank, Sriperumbudur Branch; one Arjun Kumar is also a partner in the first accused company; due to Covid-19 the company was not able to generate profit and hence, he was searching for an investor for running the company; one investor by name M. Gowtham Ananth was introduced to the petitioner/first accused through another friend Saran @ Saranraj the said Gowtham Ananth has expressed his willingness to buy the company of the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs. 10 Crores; he also entered into a partnership agreement dated 11.05.2021 with the petitioner and out of Rs. 10 Crores, it was agreed that Rs. 5 Crores was used for buying out shares and further Rs. 5 Crores will be used for running the company and the profit would be returned to Gowtham Ananth within a period of two years.

5.1. After agreeing to the said terms, Gowtham Ananth said he would make an advance payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- however, he did not pay any advance amount, the petitioner approached Gowtham Ananth and he had issued a cheque for Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn from AXIS bank pertaining to his TMG Enterprises Account No. 920020064756414; when the cheque was presented by the petitioner, it was returned for the reason that the name of the recipient was not correct; when the same was informed to Gowtham Ananth, he assured that he would set right everything after he returned fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top