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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 102086

MADRAS HIGH COURT
J.RAVI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE BY – Respondent
CRL OP 29012/2018



Advocates:
['M/S N MANOKARAN', '', 'N S SUGANTHAN', 'R RENUKADEVI', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', '', 'A YOGARAJA', 'M THANU', 'M/S R MARUDHACHALAMURTHY']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 01.04.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 27.05.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.29012 of 2018 and

Crl.M.P.No.16946 of 2018

1.J.Ravi

2.R.Savitha

3.R.Narayanan

... Petitioners

Versus

1.The State by the Inspector of Police,

Kannankurichi Police Station,

Crime No.650 of 2018,

Salem District.

2.N.Muthukumar

... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating

to the FIR in Crime No.650 of 2018 on the file of the 1st

respondent Police, Quash the same by allowing this Criminal

Original Petition.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ganesh for

Mr.N.Manokaran

For R1

: Mr.A.Damodaran,

Additional Public Prosecutor

For R2

: Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash

the FIR in Crime No.650 of 2018, dated 29.11.2018, on the file

of the 1st respondent Police.

2.The 2nd

respondent lodged a complaint to the

Commissioner of Police, Police on 30.10.2018, which was

forwarded to the 1st respondent Police on 01.11.2018. On the

complaint, an FIR in Crime No.650 of 2018, for offence under

Section 420 IPC, was registered against the petitioners on

29.11.2018.

3.The complaint is that the petitioners and the 2nd

respondent are known to each other and they are devotees of

Thirumoorthy Malai Swamigal. The petitioners 1 and 2 were

running a business in the name and style of M/s.Xedon Media

Private Limited at Gorimedu, Salem. The petitioners 1 and 2

were unable to repay the business loan obtained in City Union

Bank, Erode Branch and they became defaulters. The petitioners

1 and 2 intended to get loan from Canara Bank, Gorimedu Branch,

Salem by mortgaging the 1st petitioner's father property, for

which they had to show some bank transaction in the bank account

maintaining in the name of M/s.Xedon Media Private Limited.

Hence, the petitioners 1 and 2 approached the 2nd respondent on

01.03.2018 and asked them to deposit Rs.21,00,000/- in M/s.Xedon

Media Private Limited bank account and thereafter, the same

would be re-transferred to the 2nd respondent's bank account. It

is only an adjustment. Further, the petitioners 1 and 2 also

promised to convey the property in favour of the 2nd respondent.

For the above bank transaction, the 3rd petitioner was engaged by

the petitioners 1 and 2 and the entire transaction was handled

by him.

Believing the same, the 2nd

respondent gave

Rs.21,00,000/- to his Manager Angamuthu and also gave his two

Axis Bank account Nos.917030032895768 and 915030006267074 for

the transaction, the said Angamuthu proceeded to Canara Bank,

Gorimedu Branch, Salem. At about 10.30 a.m., Angamuthu handed

over Rs.21,00,000/- to the 3rd petitioner, who received the cash,

deposited the same in M/s.Xedon Media Private Limited bank

account and gave NEFT slip showing that the amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- transferred to the Axis bank account in

No.91503006267074 and the balance amount of Rs.11,00,000/-

transferred to the Axis bank account No.917030032895768. The

amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was credited to the 2nd respondent's

bank account. As regards, the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- is

concerned, the 3rd petitioner wrongly mentioned the last two

digits of the 2nd respondent bank account number and thereby, the

amount of Rs.11,00,000/- got re-credited to M/s.Xedon Media

Private Limited bank account.

4.The CCTV camera in Canara Bank, Gorimedu Branch, Salem

confirms the presence of the 2nd respondent's Manager Angamuthu

as well as the 3rd petitioner. Hence, the 2nd respondent lodged a

complaint to the 1st respondent against the petitioners herein.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted t

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