IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA C rl. O.P. No.2032 o f 2021 and Crl.M.P. Nos.1127 & 1128 of 2021 Anand Surana .. Petitioner Versus
1. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, CCB Police, Team XVI, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. A.H.Shaik Alavudeen ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No.5074 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction by allowing the present Criminal Original Petition. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Thiagarajan For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor
2 : Mr. Y.Mohamed Ghouse
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to C.C. No.5074 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as illegal.
2. The petitioner is the first accused against whom and two other accused, a case has been registered in Cr.No.105 of 2014 by the first respondent / Inspector of Police, CCB Police, Team XVI, Vepery, on the complaint given by the second respondent / de facto complainant.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the de facto complainant one A.M.Haja Mohideen and his brother Anwaruddin have purchased a property situated at Door No.12-A & 12-B, Parasu Pillai Street, Kilpauk, Chennai in the year 1970 from one Suseela; the father of the de facto complainant died in the year 1996; the petitioner's paternal uncle Anwaruddin is a resident of Singapore and he is doing business there and hence the subject property was maintained by the de facto complainant; since the de facto complainant was in need of money during the year 2002, he wanted to mortgage the above said property; in order to help him in raising money by mortgaging the subject property, the de facto complainant got introduced himself to one Murugadas who is the second accused herein; the said Murugadas assured the de facto complainant that he would get money from the first accused / the petitioner, if a mortgage deed is executed in respect of the subject property; the de facto complainant went along with Murugadas to the office of the petitioner and the petitioner asked him to come after two days in order to receive a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-; after two days, Murugadas and the de facto complainant went to the Sub Registrar Office, Periamet where the de facto complainant was asked to sign in many documents and the de facto complainant had also handed over the original title deeds of the subject property to the first and second accused and he was also asked to sign in a typed stamp paper and thereafter he received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the first accused; after a few months, the men of the first accused came and threatened that the de facto complainant should execute the sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of the first accused / the petitioner; however, the de facto complainant refused to execute the sale deed; later the de facto complainant has let out the property to one Kishan for rent and the said Kishan used to pay rent to the de facto complainant; while that being so, during the month of April, 2005, the henchman of the first accused came to Tiruvarur and abducted the de facto complainant in a car and they kept him in Malliga Lodge, Mount Road, Chennai and the first accused threatened the de facto complainant to execute the sale deed in accordance with the sale agreement; when the de facto complainant refused to execute a sale deed, the first accused threatened the de facto complainant that he could not return to his place unless he executed the sale deed in his favour; frightened by the threat caused to him, the de facto complainant went to the Sub Registrar Office; there he saw his paternal uncle Anwaruddin was impersonated by some other person and they managed to execute the sale deed in respect of the subject property by using an impersonator along with the de facto complainant; the amount, as stated in the sale deed, was not paid to the de facto complainant; when the de facto complainant came to collect rent from his tenant Kishan, he came to know that the first accused and his henchman had threatened Kishan to vacate the premises and damaged his goods; in this regard, the de facto complainant had given a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, but no action has been taken; thereafter, he filed a petition in Crl.O.P. No.22432 / 2011 and got a direction to register the FIR.
3.2 On the basis of the above complaint, a case was registered by CCB police in Cr. No.105/2014 for the offences under Section 419, 420 r/w.34 IPC and 506(i) IPC; af
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.