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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 7585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.02.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.22274 of 2022 M.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Gudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2. Prakash ...

Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.156 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal, incompetent by allowing the present Criminal Original Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R2 : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For M/s.P.J.Anitha

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.156 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not indulged in any offence alleged by the prosecution and he has not cheated the defacto complainant and he was falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are running a power loom factory and one Padma and Muniappan are the workers under the petitioners. He further submitted that the said Padma and Muniyappan have borrowed a sum of Rs.1,56,400/- from the petitioner and a promissory note has been executed by both of them. Thereafter, the said Padma and Muniyappan left the petitioner's power loom and joined the defacto complaiant's power looms. He further submitted that the defacto complainant has paid the money to the petitioner which is merely to settle the money borrowed by the said Padma and Muniyappan and by paying the said amount to take both Padma and Muniyappan to his power loom for labour as he was in requisite of labourers for his power loom. He further submitted that after 15 days from the date of joining, the said Padma and Muniyappan left the factory of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has no connection with the other accused persons. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) raised objection stating that the petitioner along with other acuused persons have cheated the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the investigation is at initial stage. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons have cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/-. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending and if the petition is allowed, it would be caused to prejudice to the respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner along with other accused persons have cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/- and threated him. Considering the gravity of offence, the investigation is at initial stage, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Crime No.156 of 2022 on the file of the 1st repsondent police.

6. In the result, these Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

06.02.2024 Speaking / Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index :Yes/No msrm To

1. The Inspector of Police, Gudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., msrm

06.02.2024

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top