Madras High Court
M.Latha vs State Represented By Its on 7 July, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2023
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.5222 & 5224 of 2023
M.Latha
W/o.B.Mohan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
S-12, Chitlapakkam Police Station,
Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044.
2.N.Dhanapal
S/o.Late Natesan ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for records related to
C.C.No.368 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Tambaram and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan
for Mr.G.Mutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate [Crl.side] [R1]
No appearance [R2]
*****
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.368 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Tambaram.
2. The second respondent is the father of the petitioner and he gave
a complaint to the first respondent to the effect that the petitioner had
taken advantage of the age and health condition of the second respondent
and had managed to get a sale deed executed in her favour. When the
second respondent questioned the petitioner about the same, he is said to
have been threatened. Based on this complaint, the first respondent
registered a First Information Report in Crime No.713 of 2019.
3. The first respondent proceeded to investigate the case and a final
report came to be filed before the Court below and it was taken on file by
the Court below in C.C.No.368 of 2022. Aggrieved by the same, the
present petition has been filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 17.04.2023, this Court
passed the following order:
"This petition is filed to call for the records related to
C.C.No.368 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I,
Tambaram and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
defacto complainant/petitioner's father had infact executed sale
deed in respect of the disputed property in favour of the petitioner
in the year 2011. However, her father had given a false complaint
against her alleging that, sale deed was executed at the time of his
illness and unconscious mind. On the basis of the complaint, FIR
in Crime No.713 of 2019 was registered for the offence under
Sections 341, 294(b) & 506(1) of IPC, subsequently, offences
were altered to 406 of IPC and final report was also filed.
Thereafter, petitioner's father/defacto complainant had filed a
petition before the District Revenue Officer, Tambaram under
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007. The District Revenue Officer had passed
Na.Ka.No.1461/2021/m dated 15.07.2021 cancelling the sale
deed. Against the said proceedings, petitioner filed
W.P.No.17205 of 2021 before this Court and obtained stay. In the
said circumstances, continuance of the proceedings in
C.C.No.368 of 2022 is not appropriate and therefore, present
petition is filed.
3. Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) takes notice for 1st respondent. Issue notice to the 2nd
respondent returnable in three weeks time.
4. Post the matter after three weeks. Trial in this case shall
go on, but pronouncement of judgment is alone to be deferred till
next hearing."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
5. Heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner and
Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] appearing for
the first respondent. Notice has been served on the second respondent
and his name has also been printed in the cause list, however, there is no
representation on the side of the second respondent.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and materials available on record.
7. In the instant case, the sale deed was executed in favour of the
petitioner in the year 2011. This is sought to be questioned by second
respondent by way of giving a criminal complaint in the year 2022. It is
also seen from records that the second respondent had approached the
competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and filed a petition for cancellation of the
same. The competent authority had also cancelled the sale deed through
proceedings dated 15.07.2021. This order has been put to challenge by
the petiitoner before this Court and the same is pending in W.P.No.17205
of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
8. In the considered view of this Court, the allegations that have
been made in the final report read along with the materials available
before the Court does not make out an offence u/s.406 IPC. To constitute
an offence u/s.406 IPC, the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach
of trust must be satisfied u/s.405 IPC. To satisfy the ingredients, there
must be entrustment of the property or the dominion over the property
must be entrusted. The next ingredient is that the person to whom it has
been entrusted must have misappropriated or converted the property to
his own use and dishonestly used or disposed of the property.
9. In the instant case, the second respondent has lost right and title
over the property by virtue of the execution of the sale deed in the year
2011. Therefore, the property which came into the hands of the petitioner
no more belongs to the second respondent. In view of the same, there is
no question of charging the petitioner for an offence of criminal breach
of trust.
10. Insofar as the charge u/s.506(i) IPC is concerned, there is
absolutely no material to sustain this charge since the ingredients of
Section 503 IPC has not been satisfied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
11. In the considered view of this Court, the continuation of
criminal proceedings as against the petitioner will amount to abuse of
process of Court, which requires the interference of this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.368 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I,
Tambaram, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
07.07.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate I,
Tambaram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
S-12, Chitlapakkam Police Station,
Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH., J
gm
Crl.O.P.No.8210 of 2023
07.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
