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

P.Anbalagan – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
CRL OP(MD) 1173/2021



Advocates:
['M/s K P S Palanivel Rajan', '', 'K Prabakaran', 'Cell', 'ADDL Public Prosecutor', '', 'FOR THE RESPONDENTS']

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1173 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 26.04.2022

PRONOUNCED ON

: 29.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1173 of 2021

and

Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.564 & 565 of 2021

P.Anbalagan

... Petitioner/Accused No.6

Vs.

1.The State represented by,

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Economic Offence Wing – II,

Dindigul.

(Crime No.1 of 2005).

... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2.The Competent Authority/

District Revenue Officer,

Dindigul.

... 2nd Respondent/

Defacto complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C.,

to order transfer of the case in C.C.No.20 of 2010 now pending on

the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act, Madurai for criminal

trial to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul for fair

trial within a reasonable time.

For Petitioner

: Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan

For Respondents

: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to order

transfer of the case in C.C.No.20 of 2010 now pending on the file of

the Special Court under TNPID Act, Madurai for criminal trial to the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul for fair trial.

2.The case of the prosecution is that Accused Nos.1 to 4 were

running a Finance Company in the name and style of “Ravi &

Co. Bankers” as a partnership business. They collected deposits from

the general public by promising to repay with interest and committed

default in repayment of deposits. On the complaint, the F.I.R has

been registered in Crime No.1 of 2005 for the offences under

Sections 406, 418, 420, 423 and 120(b) of I.P.C on the file of the

1/5

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1173 of 2021

Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing – II, Dindigul. In

pursuant to the registration of F.I.R, the Government attached the

leasehold premises of the fifth accused, namely “Hotel Swagath”,

which was originally belonged to Accused Nos.1 to 4, by

G.O.Ms.No.1326, Home (Courts-2A) Department, dated 18.12.2000 by way

of interim attachment under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests

of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1987 (in short

hereinafter referred to as “TNPID Act”). In the meanwhile, Accused

Nos.1 to 4 filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5342 of 2001 before this

Court challenging the interim attachment and it was disposed of by

the Principal Bench of this Court on 02.07.2001 on condition to

deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month by Accused Nos.1 to 4, till

further orders passed by the Special Court. The interim attachment

of the property was made absolute, by an order, dated 19.05.2003 by

the Special Court under the TNPID Act, Madurai. While being so,

Accused Nos.1 to 4 approached Accused No.5 lessee with a proposal

for sale of the said property in order to settle their dues.

Accordingly, they sold out the hotel premises to Accused No.5 by the

registered sale deed, dated 11.08.2003 for the sale consideration of

Rs.1,15,00,000/-. Hence, the District Revenue Officer preferred a

complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.1 of 2005 for

the offences under Sections 406, 418, 420, 423 and 120(b) of I.P.C,

in which, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.6 on the

allegation that while he was serving as District Registrar,

Dindigul, registered the sale deed, dated 11.08.2003 executed by

Accused Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the fifth accused. After completion

of investigation, the first respondent filed the final report and

the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file

of the Special Court for TNPID Cases, Madurai.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that after satisfying the settlement of dues payable to the

complainant, the Special Court under TNPID Act, Madurai has passed a

f

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