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

V.RAJA – Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
CRL OP 24613/2019



Advocates:
['M/S B VIJAY', '', 'G DINESH KUMAR', 'S MOHAMED UDUMAM', 'AR BALAJI', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', 'M/S S SATHISH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.01.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.O.P.No.24613 of 2019

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.16519 & 13087 of 2019

V.Raja

.. Petitioner

/versus/

1.The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Vilupuram.

2.S.S.Rajendran

.. Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram in CMP No.1635 of 2015

in Cr. No.111 of 2014 dated 02.07.2019 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate-I, Villupuram and pass such further or other orders

as this Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and

circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner :Mr.B.Vijay

For Respondents:Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz,

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

Mr.Sundaravadanam for R2

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order passed

by the Court below dated 02.07.2019 in CMP No.1635 of 2015 by

including the name of the petitioner as A2 in the final report

and issuing summons for the appearance of the petitioner.

2.The 2nd respondent gave a complaint on 11.12.2014 to the

effect that he paid a sum of rupees Seventeen Lakhs to A1 who is

said to have promised the 2nd respondent that he will get a

medical seat for the daughter of the 2nd respondent in a private

medical college. It is further alleged in the complaint that A1

went back on his promise and was evading the repayment of the

amount to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was attempting to

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

get in contact with A1 through phone and no money is said to

have been repaid to the 2nd respondent. Till this stage, the

petitioner was nowhere in the scene. It is alleged in the

complaint that on 14.11.2014, the 2nd respondent received a call

from two mobile numbers and the caller identified himself as

Raja and that he is an Advocate by profession. It is further

alleged that the said Raja guaranteed the petitioner that he

will stand as a security and will ensure the repayment of money

to the 2nd respondent and further asked 2nd respondent to come to

his office on 25.11.2014 at 7 PM and receive the amount. The 2nd

respondent in spite of waiting for the repayment of the amount,

did not receive any amount and he called the petitioner over

phone. It is alleged that the petitioner at that point of time

had abused the 2nd respondent and threatened him with dire

consequences.

3.On the basis of the above complaint, an FIR came to be

registered by the 1st respondent on 18.12.2014 in Crime No.111 of

2014 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506

(i) of IPC. In this FIR, only the name of Srinivasan (A1) was

shown as an accused.

4.The 2nd respondent filed a petition before the Court below

under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 18.02.2015 on the ground that

the name of the petitioner was not added in the FIR and that his

name should be added as an accused. It is not known as to how

such a petition is maintainable even before a final report is

filed. However, the Court below had directed the respondent

police to enquire upon this petition and file a report before

the Court.

5.The respondent police conducted the investigation and

filed the report before the Court below on 15.06.2019 stating

that there are absolutely no materials as against the

petitioner to add as an accused in the present case and

therefore, his name has been dropped and the report is only

filed against A1 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of

IPC.

6.After the final report was filed before the Court below

by the 1st respondent, the Court below issued notice to the 2nd

respondent informing that the name of the petitioner has been

dropped from the final report. Thereafter, an order came to be

passed on 02.07.2019 in CMP.1635 of 2015 adding the petitioner

as an accused in the final report and issuing pro

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top