Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 98842
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Ms Justice R.N.MANJULA
M/S.PRANU CHITS AND FINANCE, – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP.BY – Respondent
CRL OP/2969/2021
IN A CASE OF CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST, THE ACCUSED MUST BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION.
Headnote:
TNPID ACT - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - [CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST] - PETITIONERS 1, 3, 4 & 5 WERE IMPLICATED IN THE CASE ALONG WITH THE SECOND PETITIONER / SECOND ACCUSED, WHO HAD ISSUED CHEQUES TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR LOANS TAKEN IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY - THE COURT QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONERS 1, 3, 4 & 5, HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE BETWEEN THE SECOND PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE OTHER PETITIONERS WERE INVOLVED.
Fact of the Case:
THE SECOND RESPONDENT DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.19,50,000/- WITH THE FIRST PETITIONER COMPANY, A CHIT FUND, ON THE ASSURANCE OF HIGHER INTEREST RATES - THE SECOND PETITIONER, WHO WAS THE HUSBAND OF THE THIRD PETITIONER AND A PARTNER IN THE FIRST PETITIONER COMPANY, ISSUED FOUR CHEQUES TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE RESPECTIVE SUMS AND LATER ISSUED A CONSOLIDATED CHEQUE FOR RS.19,50,000/- - THE SECOND PETITIONER ALSO EXECUTED A LOAN AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF L.W.2 FOR A SUM OF RS.2,00,000/- - WHEN THE SECOND PETITIONER FAILED TO PAY THE INTEREST AND RETURN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, THE SECOND RESPONDENT FILED A COMPLAINT, AND A CASE WAS REGISTERED AGAINST ALL THE PETITIONERS FOR CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST AND OTHER OFFENCES.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE BETWEEN THE SECOND PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE OTHER PETITIONERS WERE INVOLVED - THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER COMPANY DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST, AND THAT THE SECOND PETITIONER HAD ISSUED THE CHEQUES IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY - THE COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SECOND PETITIONER HAD FILED A SUIT AGAINST THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR RESTRAINING HIM FROM MISUSING THE CONSOLIDATED CHEQUE.
Issues: WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONERS 1, 3, 4 & 5 SHOULD BE QUASHED.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE BETWEEN THE SECOND PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE OTHER PETITIONERS WERE INVOLVED - THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER COMPANY DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST, AND THAT THE SECOND PETITIONER HAD ISSUED THE CHEQUES IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY - THE COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SECOND PETITIONER HAD FILED A SUIT AGAINST THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR RESTRAINING HIM FROM MISUSING THE CONSOLIDATED CHEQUE.
Final Decision: THE COURT QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONERS 1, 3, 4 & 5, HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE SECOND PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Crl.O.P No.2969 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P No.2969 of 2021
and Crl.M.P. Nos.1674 & 1675 of 2021
1. M/s. Pranu Chits and Finance,
A firm rep.by its
Managing Partner P.Divya,
314, First Floor, Nisha Towers,
Sathy Road,
Saravanampatti,
Coimbatoe – 35.
2. P.M.Swaminathan
3. P.Divya
4. P.Manjula
5. R.Thulasidass
... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offences Wing II,
Crime No.4 of 2019,
Coimbatore.
2. P.Jeyakumar
... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.2969 of 2021
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C. No.2 of
2020 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for TNPID Act
cases, Coimbatore, quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original
Petition.
For Petitioners
: Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondent-1 : Mr. A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (crl.side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the case in
C.C. No.2 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for
TNPID Act cases, Coimbatore and quash the same by allowing this Criminal
Original Petition.
2. The petitioners are the accused A1 to A5 respectively. The case of
the prosecution is that the petitioners collected a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- from
the second respondent on various dates between 29.01.2016 and 16.07.2016
on the assurance that they would give higher interest at the rate of Rs.3.25/-
per Rs.100 per month and after maturity period they assured to repay the
deposit amout as well; beleiving their words, one Samuthiram (L.W.2) has
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.2969 of 2021
deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- thorugh bank transaction to the second
accused on 25.01.2017; initially the interest was paid but very shortly the
petitioners stopped paying the interest; since the petitioners have committed
breach of trust and threatened the second respondent and L.W.2 when they
claim back their money, a petition has been filed by the second respondent
against the accused for the offence under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On direction
by the learned Judge, First Information Report has been registered in Cr.
No.4 of 2018 for the offences under Section 120B, 406 & 506(i) IPC. After
investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed against the
petitioners in C.C. No.2 of 2020 before the learned Special Judge, Special
Court for TNPID Act cases, Coimbatore for the offence under Section 120B,
406 & 506(i) IPC & Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protectin of Interest of
Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the
transactions in respect of a total sum of Rs.19,50,000/- is relatable only to the
second accused and the rest of the accused have got nothing to do with this
case; even the transaction of L.W.2 to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- was also
made to the second petitioner / second accused and for that transaction also
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.2969 of 2021
the rest of the petitioners are not liable; the second accused had availed a total
loan of Rs.19,50,000/- from the second respondent and had issued undated
signed cheques for the respective amounts towards the discharge of the same;
he had also entered into a loan agreement in this regard; ultimately at the
request of the second respondent, the second petitioner had issued a
consolidated cheque for a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- vide cheque No.057604
dated 07.08.2017 drawn from his account at Federal bank, Saravanampatti,
Coimbatore; accordingly the second petitioner had also executed a loan
agreement in favour of L.W.2 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- availed by him as
loan fr
