IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 25.10.2024 CORAM The Hon`ble Mr. Justice P.DHANABAL Crl. O.P. No.25690 of 2022 G. Venugopal S/o. T.T. Girirajan ... Petitioner / Accused vs.

1. State represented by:- The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-2, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.

2. Manjula D/o. Late Satya Narayanan .... Respondents PRAYER: The Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C. No.3567 of 2020 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB/CBCID Court, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.

For petitioner : Mr. John Sathyan, Senior Counsel For Respondent : Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras [for R1]

Mr. V. Raghavachari for Mr. K. Balasubramaniam [for R2]

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for exclusive trial of cases under CCB / CBCID, Egmore, Chennain in C.C. No.3567 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.

2. According to the prosecution case, the defacto complainant and the accused are husband and wife and they jointly purchased the property in the year 2008 and the same was mortgaged into the HDFC Bank, through joint loan account for a sum of Rs.84 lakhs. While so, due to misunderstanding between the parties, in the year 2014, they were separated and living separately. Already, FIR has been registered as against the husband of the defacto complainant and the same is pending before the Mylapore Police Station in Cr. No.11 of 2006 under 498(A)

and 506(2) of IPC.

2.1. While so, on 12.09.2016, Staff of the HDFC Bank came to the defacto complainant and stated that on 22.07.2015, the husband of the defacto complainant obtained loan for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs and the defacto complainant was the co-applicant and there was default in payment of EMI, thereby requested to pay the said amount. Thereafter, she went to the bank and found that the husband of the defacto complainant forged the signature of the defacto complainant and filled the housing loan application form as co-applicant and also created the general power of attorney and thereby, he obtained loan of Rs.35 lakhs and thereby, she lodged a complaint before the respondent police and based on the complaint, they registered a case in Cr. No.15 of 2017 under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and the same was investigated by the police and thereafter, they filed a final report as against the husband of the defacto complainant for the above said offences. The said final report has been taken on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for exclusive trial of CCB / CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai and thereby, the said cognizance has been challenged thorugh this petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that as per the prosecution, on 19.09.2016, the petitioner obtained a housing loan of Rs.35 lakhs on 22.07.2015 from HDFC bank by forging the signature of the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant and during that period, the defacto complainant and the petitioner were living separately. In fact, the petitioner along with his wife availed loan from the bank for a sum of Rs.83 lakhs in the year 2008 and have been promptly repaid the loan without any default. Thereafter, he again availed top-up loan in the very same loan account to the tune of Rs.35 lakhs on 13.07.2005 by executing necessary documents jointly by the petitioner and the defacto complainant in extension of mortgage on the property. Subsequent to the availing of loan, there are matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. Based on the false complaint given by the defacto complainant, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The 1st respondent police have registered the complaint without conducting any enquiry and the petitioner had effected full payment for t