Madras High Court
Shanmuga Rajeshwaran vs The State Through on 4 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
and CRL.M.P(MD).Nos.4177 and 4178 of 2021
Shanmuga Rajeshwaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State through
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai District.
Crime No.2 of 2012.
2.B.Dhanavalli ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.587 of 2019
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same
insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : No-appearance
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records in C.C.No.587 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same in respect of the petitioner
herein.
2. According to the petitioner, he is doing real estate business. The
second respondent has approached the petitioner for selling her house
site situated at S.No.59/2, Chettikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk for
urgent need of money for her daughter's marriage. At that time, the
petitioner did not have money and hence, he introduced his friends,
namely, Deena Dhayalan and Anbalagan, who are the accused Nos.2 and
3. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was dealing with the accused Nos.
2 and 3 and the petitioner had no nexus with the transaction between the
defacto complainant and the other accused and he did not aware of the
power of attorney deed executed by the defacto complainant. While so,
the second respondent had given a complaint before the first respondent
Police alleging that she approached the petitioner for obtaining loan to
her daughter's marriage and he introduced the accused Nos.2 and 3 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
then, she borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the accused No.3 and
deposited the title deeds. At that time, for security purpose, she executed
a power deed in favour of accused No.3 and then, the second respondent
approached the accused No.3 and returned the entire amount, but he
refused to return the original documents. Thereafter, the second
respondent came to know that the property was sold to the accused No.4
and then, she gave a complaint to the first respondent. Without properly
enquiring the above facts, the first respondent has mechanically
registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2012 against the petitioner and other
accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406
and 420 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet laid against the petitioner is
liable to be quashed.
3. No counter is filed by the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the second respondent had given a complaint before the first respondent
Police alleging that she approached the petitioner for obtaining loan to
her daughter's marriage and he introduced the accused Nos.2 and 3 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
then, she borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the accused No.3 and
deposited the title deeds. At that time, for security purpose, she executed
a power deed in favour of accused No.3 and then, the second respondent
approached the accused No.3 and returned the entire amount, but he
refused to return the original documents. Thereafter, the second
respondent came to know that the property was sold to the accused No.4
and then, she gave a complaint to the first respondent. In fact, the
petitioner is only an introducer and he did not aware of the fact as to
whether the defacto complainant has sold the property to the other
accused persons. He is no way connected with the alleged offence.
However, the first respondent, without enquiring the matter properly, has
registered a case against the petitioner and filed the final report.
Therefore, he prays for quashing of C.C.No.587 of 2019 filed against the
petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the first respondent submits that the defacto complainant approached
the petitioner for obtaining loan for her daughter's marriage. She
deposited title deeds, but the petitioner obtained power of attorney deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
and thereafter, sold the property. There was no sale deed executed by the
second respondent. The petitioner has cheated the second respondent and
thereby, she gave a complaint before the first respondent, based on
which, a case has been registered in Crime No.2 of 2012 and thereafter,
the investigation was completed and the final report was filed. The same
was taken on file in C.C.No.587 of 2019 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Madurai. The petitioner has two previous cases.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the first
respondent.
7. According to the second respondent, she has received a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and she deposited title deeds for
the loan obtained by her for her daughter's marriage. But, according to
the petitioner, he did not aware of the said deposit of title deeds and the
execution of power of attorney. According to the complaint and the
charge sheet, this petitioner only introduced the other accused (i.e.,) A2
and A3 and they obtained power deed and then, sold the property to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
accused No.4. After registration of FIR, the first respondent Police
investigated the case and filed final report. As per final report, this
petitioner also involved in this occurrence and he along with the accused
Nos.2 and 3 promised to return the documents after discharging the
entire loan amount. But the petitioner denied his involvement and he did
not know about the said execution of deed. These facts to be elucidated
through trial. The offences are also serious in nature and need elaborate
trial. However it is an admitted fact that on the date of execution of
power of attorney, the sale was not taken place but the sale receipt was
obtained from the defacto complainant without any sale transaction. The
issue with regard to the execution of power of attorney and the sale
receipt have to be decided by the trial Court, after elaborate trial. At this
stage, this Court cannot go into the veracity of the documents and the
statements recorded by the prosecution.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mitesh
Kumar J.Sha vs. The State of Karnataka and others in Crl.A.No.1285
of 2021 and MNG Bharateesh Reddy vs. Ramesh Ranganathan and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
another in Crl.A.No.1273 of 2022.
9. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner will not be
applicable to the present case, since in the present case, there are prima
facie materials available against the petitioners. Therefore, as discussed
supra, there are no sufficient grounds to quash the charge sheet as against
this petitioner and in view of the guideline issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
vs. State of Maharastra and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC
315, this Court is declined to allow this petition.
10. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ssb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
P. DHANABAL,J.
ssb
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8109 of 2021
04.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
