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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI
RAHUL NARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
The State By Additional DSP – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

1. Rahul Narayan S/o.Late Lalitha Narayan, No.3/318, Abimanyu Natarajan Aven, Uthandi, Chennai-600 019.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State By, Additional DSP, CCB, Commissionerate of Police, Tambaram Division, Sholinganallur, Chennai-119.

Respondent(s)

CRL RC No. 2323 of 2025 PRAYER To set aside the order of the Honble District Musif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Sholinganallur, dt.19.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.NO.194/2025 based on report dated 19.09.2025 by Additional DSP, CCB, Commissionerate, of Police Solinganallur, Tambaram and direct him to re investigate and file a report to redress the Rev.Petitinoers grievance and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : G. Anand For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E. Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order of the District Musiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Sholinganallur, dated 19.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.NO.194/2025 based on report dated 19.09.2025 by Additional DSP, CCB, Commissionerate, of Police Solinganallur, Tambaram and direct him to re investigate and file a report to redress the Rev.Petitinoers grievance.

2. The petitioner herein has lodged a complaint before the Kanathur Police Station and obtained C.S.R no. 0650/06034/COP-PG/TG and the same was forwarded to the Tambaram Police Commissioner, Additional DCP, CCB for further investigation but no action was taken. Hence, the private complaint under Sections 175(3) of BNSS before the District Musiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Sholinganallur, stating that he is sole heir of her mother/Late Lalitha Narayan, who died on 27.11.2023, as a absolute owner of the property in Plot No. 54, Old No. 3/16 in New No. 3 /318, Abhimanyu Natarajan Avenue East Coast Road, Comprised in S.No. 3/21 Part, 3/22 Part, Patta No. 1582 measuring total extent of 7600 square feet land and bungalow about 1800 square feet in ground floor and 1300 square feet in first floor, the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. On earlier occasion, through registered power of attorney dated 17.05.2019 the petitioner's mother had appointed one P.G. Ananth/A1 as her power agent and the same was cancelled on 17.05.2019. Surprisingly, during the first week of October 2023, the petitioner's mother informed that a possession notice under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act was pasted on the wall of the house by State Bank of India officials. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the fraudulent act of the first accused who had obtained other power of attorney on the date of cancellation of power deed without her knowledge and also executed sale deed on 16.12.2019 in favour of one Ganapathi Subramaniyan, based on that sale deed said Ganapathi subramaniyan borrowed a loan for a sum of Rs.3 crores by mortgaging the petitioner's mother's property. After came to know about the fraudulent act of the first accused, the petitioner's mother was dejected and died on 27.11.2023. After obtaining the certified copies of all the relevant documents, the petitioner found that on the date of cancellation of power of attorney A1 taken many signatures of hers on stamp papers, thus misrepresenting to her as if it was part of the cancellation of power of attorney, whereas he had deliberately intentionally cheated her by keeping of fresh power of attorney below the cancellation of power of attorney deed. Thereafter based on that power of attorney he executed a sale deed. Subsequently, the petitioner has issued notice to the bank officials call for the particulars with regard to borrowal of loan for which no reply was given by the bank. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that bank officials conspired with other accused persons by manipulating records obtained loan fraudulently by mortgaging the petitioner's mother'

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