IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :: 27-04-2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

Crl.R.C.No. 1483 of 2004

Bathirammal ... Petitioner

-vs-

1. K.Kalyanasundaram

2. T.R.Eswaran

3. R.Rajendran

4. The state of Tamil Nadu

Inspector of Police /

Economic Enforcement Wing,

Coimbatore. ... Respondents

Criminal Revision filed against the order, dated 26.04.2004, passed in

Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2004 in S.C.No.292 of 2003 on the file of the Additional

District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore.

For petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah

For respondents : Mr.S.Sasikumar for RR1 to

R3

Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah

Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) for R4

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order,

dated 26.04.2004 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2004 in S.C.No.292 of 2002 on

the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / FTC No.III, Coimbatore.

2. It is seen that the petitioner herein Tmt.Pathirammal filed a

private complaint against the respondents 1 to 3 / accused before the

fourth respondent under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for

the alleged offence under Section 306 r/w 511 IPC and under Sections 4 and

9 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance,

2003 and Sections 4 and 9 of the said ordinance r/w Section 511 IPC.

3. The petitioner and her husband Thimmayan had borrowed amount

from the respondents 1 to 3. The husband of the petitioner herein had

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

borrowed loan from them on 03.04.2000. According to her, she had entrusted

certain documents relating to the property to the respondents 1 to 3

towards security for the amount borrowed. She had also entered into an

agreement for the sale of property with the second respondent for a

consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1,50,000/-

and also executed power of attorney authorizing 3^rd respondent to sell the

property on her behalf. Subsequently, the same was sold by the third

respondent to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, she had

discharged the loan on 25.05.2001, but the respondents did not return the

documents entrusted to them and that the respondent 1 to 3 were

threatening the petitioner with dare consequences, apart from that the

respondents 1 to 3 are inducing the petitioner to commit suicide, if the

amount is not repaid. It is seen from the records that the court below

after receiving the evidence of the husband of the petitioner herein,

Thimmaiyan (P.W.1) and two other witnesses committed the case before the

court of Sessions at Coimbatore under Section 209 Cr.P.C and subsequently,

it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court / FTC No.III, Coimbatore

for trial. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it was pleaded before the

trial court that no prima facie case has been made out against them and

pleaded for discharge.

4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge / FTC No.III, Coimbaotre,

after considering the arguments advance by both sides and the materials

available before the court, has held that there is no sufficient grounds

for proceeding against the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who were accused in

the said case and accordingly, discharged them from the case, against

which, this Criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioner herein.

5. On a perusal of the case records, it is seen that the

revision petitioner / complainant never entered into the witness box to

depose her case, for the reasons best known to her.

6. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, it

is only a civil dispute between the petitioner herein and her husband on

the one side and the respondents 1 to 3 on the other side. The petiti