Advocates:
['M/S AL GANTHIMATHI', '', 'AR KARTHIK LAKSHMANAN', 'AG ABHISHEK', 'B PRASANTH NADARAJ', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', '', 'AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FILED']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

CRL.O.P.NO.6118 OF 2017

AND

CRL.M.P.NOS.4552 & 4553 OF 2017

S.Mohan Kumar

...Petitioner/Accused 1

Versus

1.State rep by.

The Inspector of Police

Central Crime Branch,

Egmore, Chennai-600 008

2.T.S.Sundaravadivelu

(R2 impleaded as per order in

Crl.M.P.No.13452 of 2021 in

Crl.O.P.No.6118 of 2017 dated

14.12.2021)

...Respondents/Complainants

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in the Charge

sheet in C.C.No.1616 of 2015 on the file of Learned Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi

For Respondents

:

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar for R1

Government Advocate(Crl.side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for

the records and quash the proceedings in the Charge sheet in

C.C.No.1616 of 2015 on the file of Learned Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Egmore for the offence under Sections 406, 420 of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging

Exorbitant Interest Act 2003 r/w 34 of the IPC were slapped

against the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The crux of the allegation against the petitioner is that

the defacto complainant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-

as loan from the petitioner/A1 in terms of Rs.70 lakhs repayable

at Rs.3 lakhs principal and Rs.2.1 lakhs for a period of 24

months; Rs.50 lakhs of which Rs.15 lakhs was deducted towards

interest and Rs.35 lakhs was disbursed to the defacto

complainant on condition that it should be repaid in 10

installments of Rs.5 lakhs per month. Besides, the defacto

complainant has also executed a Power of Attorney in respect of

9 acres and 15 cents (915 cents) of land in favour of A2, who

is a Mediator between the petitioner and the defacto

complainant. The defacto complainant has handed over the

promissory notes, cheques and blank stamp papers to the

petitioner. Thereafter, the defacto complainant has paid the

loan amounts in three instalments and he has not paid the

remaining amount. In the meanwhile, income tax raid was

conducted in the petitioner/A1 house and the defacto complainant

was also summoned and examined, in which, the defacto

complainant has admitted that he has to still pay a sum of

Rs.95,00,000/- to the petitioner. However, on verification of

the accounts, it is his contention that he is liable to pay less

than Rs.95,00,000/- as per the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging

Exorbitant Interest Act 2003. Hence, the petitioner/A1 executed

the documents on the basis of Power of Attorney. Thereby, the

charge

under

Sections

406,

420

of

IPC

and

Sections 3 and 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant

Interest Act 2003 r/w 34 of the IPC were slapped against the

petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

defacto complaint himself admitted the fact that he has executed

several documents including Power of Attorney for the money

payable to the accused. Therefore, merely because the documents

were executed on the basis of Power of Attorney, the offence

under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C would not attract. Similarly,

in this case, the loan has been advanced on the basis of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 and Tamilnadu Prohibition of

Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003 will not apply. He further

submitted that criminal colour has been given to civil dispute.

Hence, the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that

the witnesses have been examined and higher rate of interest has

been collected. The crux of the allegation in the final report

itself shows that the money has been advanced on the basis of

Negotiable Instrument act. It is re