IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
S. Jagathrakshakan - Petitioner
Versus
The State by The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarters, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.O.P.Nos.12985 & 12986 of 2020, Crl.M.P.Nos.5061 & 5062 of 2020 and 1455 & 1456 of 2021
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 –Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 90 – Quash the FIR – Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for records relating to FIR in Crime on file of Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarter, Chennai, first respondent herein and quash same – Held, Hence, there is a presumption in respect of these transactions under Section 114 (e) of Indian Evidence Act – Further all these documents are more than 30 years old and proper custody – Therefore, there is a presumption under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act and it cannot be said that these documents were forged and fabricated one – Over all proceedings pertaining to M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited, before this Court initiated by second respondent were dismissed by holding that he had played fraud on Court Without considering these facts and circumstances, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, set aside order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Crl.M.P. and ordered to conduct further investigation – In pursuant to said directions, first respondent registered the impugned FIRs – It is nothing but clear abuse of process of law – Criminal Original Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime Nos.2 & 3 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarter, Chennai, the first respondent herein and quash the same.
These petitions have been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime Nos.2 & 3 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police registered for the offences under Sections Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, and under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 & 120B of IPC respectively, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the power agent of one George Joseph Chambers, who is the only legal heir of late George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers. The said George Alexander Chambers purchased 5000 equity shares and 2000 preferential shares in the name of M/s. Chrome Leather Company and appointed three trustees viz., Ida L Chambers, H.M.Small and Vellore Parthasarathy Jeganathan Mudaliar. Among those shares 4997 shares were held by the trustees and the trustees executed a sale deed in favour of M/s. Chrome Leather Company and Ida L Chambers came into possession of the properties in her individual capacity and later compromise decree was passed on 19.02.1965 in C.S.Nos.46 of 1963 & 2 of 1964.
3. Thereafter, the properties came into the possession of Ida L Chambers and she died on 13.08.1968, leaving behind the principal of the defacto complainant as her sole legal heir. Since the principal of the defacto complainant was travelling on the high seas, he was not able to concentrate upon the properties. While being so, the defacto complainant collected details and came to know that the equity shares and preferential shares were transferred in the name of A. Nagappa Chettiar and he was representing M/s. Chrome Leather Company as Managing Director. After demise of Ida L Chambers, the said A. Nagappa Chettiar had deposited the bogus share certificates in the Central Bank of India to obtain loans. The said A. Nagappa Cheittiar had shown himself as Managing Director of M/s. Chrome Leather Company as early as on 1944, but he had come to picture only after the demise of Ida L Chambers.
4. Thereafter the said A. Nagappa Chettiar mortgaged the properties belonging to M/s. Chrome Leather Company and also the private properties of George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers. The bank authorities of Central Bank of India without following the rules and regulations, sanctioned the loan and thereafter filed a suit in O.S.No.314 of 1980 for declaration and bringing the properties for public auction. The petitioner herein had purchased the shares in collusion with A. Nagappa Chettiar knowing that the shares were fabricated. The bank authorities without following the legal procedures and the SARFAESI Act had transferred the shares in favour of the petitioner herein. Thereafter most of the properties were unlawfully and illegally meddled by the petitioner herein and others. They manipulated the revenue records and created false documents by forging the signature of the original owner and also threatened the second respondent. Hence, the cases in Crime Nos.304 & 305 of 2007 were registered by the City Crime Branch X, Thousand Lights, Chennai, on 20.06.2007.
5. After completion of investigation, the Crime Branch Police had filed final reports by concluding that the cases were “Mistake of Facts” before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. The second respondent had also filed protest petitions before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, in C.M.P.Nos.4147 & 4148 of 2007 and the same were dismissed on 23.04.2009 by accepting the final reports filed as mistake of fact. Thereafter, based on the suo-muto order passed by the Additional Director General of Police, vide R.C.No.C6/8313/2012, the above cases were taken up for further investigation and the first respondent herein had filed petitions fo
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others
SupremeToday
Civil disputes cannot be cloaked in criminality; allegations of cheating require proof of fraudulent intent at inception of the transaction.
A criminal complaint for forgery and cheating cannot be sustained merely because a party enters into a property transaction despite a defective title originating from previously declared invalid docu....
The court emphasized that speculative allegations without substantial evidence cannot sustain criminal proceedings, and individuals possess the right to manage their property affairs without undue in....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating or criminal liability unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown to exist at the inception of the transaction. Similarly, execution of a....
Civil disputes should not be framed as criminal offences when no fraudulent intent is evident, as it constitutes an abuse of legal processes.
The court established that allegations of forgery and cheating can coexist with civil disputes, allowing for criminal proceedings to continue.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of prima facie evidence and mala-fide intention in a civil dispute can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.