IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Dhanraj N. Kochar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB, EDF II, Team IX-A & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.O.P.Nos.15716, 15717, 24431 of 2017 & 8609 of 2019, Crl.M.P.Nos.9801, 9802, 11120, 11121, 14139, 14140 of 2017 & 4596 of 2019
Decided On : 16-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 506 (i) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482, 156(3) – Tamil Nadu Urban and Land Ceiling Act, 1987 – Criminal Original Petition – Quash all proceedings – Quash complaints – Framing charge – Criminal prosecution belatedly – Complainant filed an application before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, in Crl. M.P, alleging that, her complaint before Commissioner of Police against the accused persons regarding grabbing of land by committing breach of trust, cheating and intimidating her not acted upon – Held, Court is of view that since complaint itself is born out of malice and not sustainable for accused to undergo ordeal of trial, no order warrants in these implead applications – Hence, Crl.M.P. are dismissed – Petitioners, who are legal heirs of deceased N.R. shall participate in pending civil proceedings by filing appropriate impleading petitions – Dismissal of these applications in quash petitions shall no way prejudice their rights in participating civil proceedings – Criminal Original Petitions Allowed.
ORDER :
[Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.1371 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB & CB-CID, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai in Crime No.100 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.692 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB & CB-CID, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai in Crime No.99 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash all the proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB-CBCID, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai in Crime No.43 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash all the proceedings in C.C.No.1371 of 2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB-CBCID, Egmore, Chennai in Crime No.100 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.]
Crl.O.P.No.15716 of 2017 & 8609 of 2019:-
(i) N.R. Vatchala, the complainant filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, in Crl.M.P.No.7321 of 2013 dated 29.10.2013, alleging that, her complaint before Commissioner of Police against the accused persons regarding grabbing of land by committing breach of trust, cheating and intimidating her not acted upon. Hence, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore directed respondent police to investigate and file final report. Pursuant to the order of the Court in Crl.M.P.No.7321 of 2013, dated 29.10.2013, the 1st respondent police registered F.I.R in Crime No.100 of 2014 on 15.02.2014.
Crl.O.P.No.15717 of 2017:-
(ii). N.R. Vatchala, the complainant filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, in Crl.M.P.No.7319 of 2013 dated 29.10.2013, alleging that her complaint before Commissioner of Police against the accused persons regarding grabbing of land by committing breach of trust, cheating and intimidating her not acted upon. Hence, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore directed the respondent police to investigate and file final report. Pursuant to the order of the Court in Crl.M.P.No.7319 of 2013 dated 29.10.2013, the 1st respondent police registered F.I.R in Crime No.99 of 2014 on 15.02.2014.
Crl.O.P.No.24431 of 2017:-
(iii). N.R. Vatchala, the complainant filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, in Crl.M.P.No.7322 of 2013 dated 29.10.2013, alleging that her complaint before Commissioner of Police against the accused persons regarding grabbing of land by committing breach of trust, cheating and intimidating her not acted upon. Hence, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore directed the respondent police to investigate and file final report. Pursuant to the order of the Court in Crl.M.P.No.7322 of 2013 dated 29.10.2013, the 1st respondent police registered F.I.R in Crime No.43 of 2014 on 18.01.2014.
2. These three private complaints were filed on common facts that the complainant N.R. Vatchala was carrying on real estate business in the name and style of M/s.Saravana Real Estate. She entered into an unregistered sale agreement with one Ravichandran, for purchase of 3 acres of land situated in S.No.43 Part, Kolathur Village, Perambur Taluk, Chennai for consideration of Rs.15 lakhs. To develop her business, she borrowed Rs.2,25,000/- from Dhanraj Kochar, Inderchand Jain and Suresh Kumar in year 1988. As a security for the loan, she instructed her vendor Ravichandran to execute the sale deeds in favour of these three persons to an ex
G. Pankajakshi Amma vs. Mathai Methew
Krishan Singh vs. Gurpal Singh
CBI, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd, Calcutta
K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police
Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat
Babu Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and another
Offence of cheating - Quash of criminal complaint - There is no fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person induced to deliver any property to any person again same is not the case her – Court not....
FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise....
Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.
The distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences is crucial, with criminal liability requiring proof of dishonest intention from the outset, which was not established in this case.
The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the process of the court or if quashing the proceedings would serve ....
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.