Madras High Court
R.Thayammal vs The State on 29 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
and Crl.MP.No.16557 of 2018
R.Thayammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Salem City.
2.A.Sukumar ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, salem in C.C.No.75 of 2018 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ilayaperumal
for Mr.S.B.Viswanathan
For Respondents
R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
R2 : Mrs.M.Sneha
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner/A2 in C.C.No.75 of 2018 facing trial for the offence
under Sections 420 and 120(B) IPC filed this quash petition.
2.The gist of the case is that the respondent police registered a case in
Crime No.23 of 2008 against three persons, namely, Dr.V.Ranganathan/A1,
R.Thayammal/A2/petitioner herein and Dr.V.R.Sanjeevi/A3. A1 is the
husband and A3 is the son of the petitioner/A2. The second
respondent/defacto complainant is in the real estate business in the name
and style of E.S. Real Estate. During the year 2005, the petitioner along
with her husband and son entered into a criminal conspiracy by producing
the copies of documents relating to their land situated at Chettipalayam
Village, Coimbatore suppressing the fact that the said lands are mortgaged
with Canara Bank, Coimbatore and it is already under lis. Suppressing the
same, they wanted the property to be disposed by making representation
that the land is free from all encumbrances, thereby they committed the
offence of conspiracy. In furtherance to the conspiracy, the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
the other accused came to Salem on 03.12.2006, met the complainant in his
office, represented that the land is free from all encumbrances and produced
all the relevant documents. Thereafter, again came on 06.12.2006, received
Rs.10,00,000/- and issued receipt. Again on 26.12.2006, the accused
received another Rs.10,00,000/- and issued receipt. Since the petitioner and
the other accused failed to dispose of the land or took any steps to sell the
land, the defacto complainant demanded A1 to A3 to return the amount, for
which the accused refused and further, they threatened the defacto
complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint. Initially,
the respondent police was reluctant to take any action and hence, the defacto
complainant filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., thereafter FIR
registered. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing
witnesses. The Trial Court on perusal of the Charge sheet, finding prima
facie case made out, taken the case on file.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that a civil case was given a
criminal colour. Initially when the second respondent lodged a complaint,
the Police refused to act on the complaint finding that it is civil in nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
Thereafter, the second respondent approached the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Salem, filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in
C.M.P.No.2416 of 2008 and on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Salem dated 09.04.2008, the respondent police registered a case in
Crime No.23 of 2008. The other accused in this case are the petitioner's
husband and son, both of them passed away. It is submitted that the
petitioner's husband Dr.V.Ranganathan owned a land to an extent of 7.2
acres in Chettipalayam Village, Coimbatore South Taluk. The said land was
mortgaged with Canara Bank and the property is valued around Rs.2.50
Crores. The property was mortgaged for a meager sum and the loan was
unable to be repaid by her son, for which attachment proceedings in DRT,
Coimbatore was initiated for a due of Rs.1,07,73,089/-. Apart from this
due, the petitioner's son Dr.V.R.Sanjeevi was to pay a sum of Rs.75 lakhs to
third parties, Rs.15 lakhs to Land Development Bank Limited and Rs.3
lakhs to Punjab and Sind Bank. Though the loans were much less than the
actual value of the property, since DRT proceedings was in advanced stage
and the petitioner's husband was facing a difficult situation, a high valued
property was to be brought to auction. Hence, the petitioner and her family
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
sought the help of the second respondent, who is a real estate agent to find a
prospective buyer who can have a one time settlement with the Bank
waiving the interest, thereby, relieving the property of all its entanglement
and sell the property for the market value. Thereafter, they can settle the
Bank, the third party dues and to get back with proportionate interest for the
investments made by the defacto complainant. On this understanding, the
defacto complainant paid Rs.10 lakhs on 06.12.2006 and another Rs.10
lakhs on 26.12.2006, thereafter failed to take any steps as promised. On the
contrary on 12.01.2007, the second respondent/defacto complainant filed a
civil suit in O.S.No.133 of 2007 before the Principal District Munsif Court,
Coimbatore, sought for an injunction restraining the petitioner and their men
not to alienate the property.
4.It is further submitted that in the civil suit, the defacto complainant
projected as though the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.84 lakhs, already
he paid Rs.20 lakhs and the balance sale consideration of Rs.64 lakhs was to
be paid for the property worth several crores. The petitioner's family had a
total loan commitment of Rs.1.82 Crores, of which loan due for Canara
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
Bank is Rs.1.07 Crores and the market value of the land was around Rs.2.50
Crores. In such circumstances, no person shall accept for the sale of such
property to Rs.84 lakhs. Considering the plight of the petitioner, the Canara
Bank agreed for one time settlement of Rs.40 lakhs and gave a letter to that
effect on 06.03.2007. But the second respondent failed to come forward to
help the petitioner, on the other hand the civil suit filed by the second
respondent become an obstacle for the one time settlement. In the result, the
petitioner was unable to avail the benefit of one time settlement, the Canara
Bank withdrawn the one time settlement on 14.06.2007 and brought the
property for public auction for Rs.1,74,77,500/-. Having no other option,
the petitioner's family had to accept the same. After deducting the Canara
Bank due of Rs.1,24,09,978/-, the Bank returned Rs.46,77,622/- to the
petitioner, of which Rs.3 lakhs was paid to Punjab and Sind Bank, Rs.15.30
lakhs was paid to the Land Development Bank Limited and Rs.12
lakhs was paid to one Vivekanandan to save the dwelling house of the
petitioner. The petitioner suffered a loss of Rs.1 Crore due to the suit filed
by the second respondent on a false pretext, not only that, now the defacto
complainant filed a false complaint against the petitioner on coming to know
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
that she is a widow and she is at the advanced age of 80 years having lost
her husband and son. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not
committed any cheating, on the contrary it is the defacto complainant who
took advantage of the distress sale, joined hands with the buyer of the
property through DRT, thereby enriched himself and made the petitioner to
sustain a loss of Rs.1 Crore. The written statement filed in O.S.No.133 of
2007 prove that there is no suppression or wrong representation. Further,
the entire happening took place in the year 2007 and the defacto complaint
lodged a complaint much later. It is further submitted that the petitioner at
this advanced age of 80 years with serious ailments to undergo ordeal of trial
is unwarranted. Hence, she prayed for quashing the complaint.
5.The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant
submitted that the petitioner and her husband received a sum of Rs.20 lakhs
in two installments on 06.12.2006 and 26.12.2006 with due receipt. They
represented that the property is free from all encumbrances and made the
defacto complainant to enter into an agreement for sale. Later, the defacto
complainant on coming to know about the deceit played by the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
and other accused filed a civil suit to safe guard his interest in O.S.No.133 of
2007 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and obtained
an order of injunction. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know
that the petitioner was due to Canara Bank, other private financiers, DRT
proceedings were pending and the property was finally brought under
auction under DRT proceedings. Further, the petitioner received a sum of
Rs.46,77,622/- after the auction of the property in DRT proceedings.
Having received such amount, the petitioner could have paid back the
defacto complainant a sum of Rs.20 lakhs received from him, despite the
same, the petitioner failed to make payment to the defacto complainant and
on the other hand enjoying the amount of Rs.20 lakhs which was received
from the defacto complainant in the year 2006. After investigation, charge
sheet filed listing nine witnesses and due to the pendency of this petition, the
Trial Court is unable to proceed with the case. It is further submitted that
the points raised by the petitioner are factual which are to be decided during
trial. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent submitted that the FIR was registered on the directions of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem in C.M.P.No.2416 of 2008 dated
09.04.2008, on completion of investigation charge sheet filed and the same
was taken on file in C.C.No.75 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 420
and 120(B) IPC against the petitioner and two others, namely, husband and
son of the petitioner. He would submit that the husband and son of the
petitioner are no more and the case against the petitioner is pending. He
further submitted that the petitioner's contention are factual which have to be
put to the witnesses during trial. Further, the defacto complainant disputes
the contention of the petitioner and such disputed issues cannot be decided
in a quash petition.
7.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials
placed before this Court, it is seen that the petitioner is the only surviving
member of the family, her husband/A2 and son/A3 are no more. The
petitioner's son availed a loan from Canara Bank for his business which
ended in loss, for which A1/her husband's property was given as security.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
During this difficult period, they approached the second respondent/defacto
complainant, for which, initially Rs.20 lakhs was paid, thereafter for some
reason further payments were not made and the dues to the Canara Bank
could not be paid and even the one time settlement which was initially
offered by the Canara Bank could not be fulfilled. Had the petitioner taken
this opportunity of one time settlement, they could have saved much more
from the attached property. There is no dispute that the property was valued
more than the loan amount and the dues. Despite the distress sale, it is
fairly admitted by the petitioner that a sum of Rs.46,77,622/- was received
and it had been used to settle the dues of Punjab and Sind Bank, Land
Development Bank Limited and a private financier. The contention of the
petitioner is that due to the civil suit filed by the defacto complainant in
O.S.No.133 of 2007, the petitioner's family had to undergo the loss of more
than Rs.1 Crore and was unable to comply with the one time settlement
appears to be reasonable. Further the petitioner's contention is that the
defacto complainant joined hand in glove with the auction purchaser of the
property, thereby facilitating the auction purchaser to buy the property at a
lesser rate sounds reasonable, but these facts are factual in nature which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
necessarily to be decided during trial and cannot be decided in a quash
petition. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dismiss this petition.
8.Further, considering the petitioner being a widow lost her husband
and son, the petitioner is exempted from appearing before the Trial Court
except on the hearings, i.e. to receive the copy under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,
for charge framing after evidence, answering the questionnaire under Section
313 Cr.P.C., to receive the judgment and on the dates, the Trial Court directs
her appearance. It is needless to state that, affidavit to be filed by the
petitioner that she will not dispute her identity, recording of evidence in her
absence, she will be represented by her counsel and she will not be a reason
for the delay. On such affidavit of undertaking, the personal appearance of
the petitioner to be dispensed with.
9.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Salem City.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Salem.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Crl.O.P.No.28415 of 2018
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
