Madras High Court
Hema vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 April, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8391 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8391 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.5730 and 5732 of 2024
1. Hema
2. Siva
3. Mathiyalagan
4.Thilakarasi .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Sendhamarai Police Station
Tenkasi District
2. K.C.Sathiya .. Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records relating to CC No.950 of 2023 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and quash the same as against the
petitioners
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
No.2 : Mr.S. Palanivelayutham
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8391 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.950 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Tenkasi.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is closely
associated with the family members of the defacto complainant and his
business. Whileso, A1 to A4 obtained money from the defacto
complainant to the tune of Rs.1,61,36,000/- and also obtained gold jewels
weighing about 118 sovereigns and also taken four mobile phones worth
about Rs.1,62,000/-. When the same was asked by the defacto complainant
the petitioners used obscene words and caused criminal intimidation.
Therefore lodged complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Tenkasi and the same was forwarded to the first respondent and they
registered a case in Crime No.98 of 2022 for the offences under Sections
294(b),120(b),506(ii), 420 and 34 of IPC. Thereafter the first respondent
conducted investigation and filed final report and now the petitioners who
are the accused are challenging the final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the defacto complainant lodged complaint against the petitioners
alleging that the defacto complainant and her husband are running
business in the name and style of Sathya Wood Industries in kadaiyalurutti
village. The first accused along with the other accused approached the
husband of the defacto complainant as online customer for the purchase of
teak wood windows, teak wood doords and other high valued wood
products in whole sale and retail manner . While so the father of the
defacto complainant namely Kalimuthu Nadar was well acquainted with
the family members of the petitioners and they have build a close
relationship with great hope in all aspects both personally and also in their
business. The defacto complainant had transferred various payments to the
petitioners 1 and 3 for various purpose and also pledged 252 gms of gold
for the petitioners 1 and 2 and also four mobile phones worth about Rs.
1,62,000/-were taken by the petitioners by giving false hope and words.
Therefore complaint was lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Tenkasi and the same was forwarded to the first respondent. Infact no such
occurrence was happened and there is no money transaction between the
first petitioner and the fourth accused . The first accused got acquaintance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
with the defacto complainant through face book and were very good
friends and the second petitioner belongs to fishermen community and the
third petitioner involved in the business of export, import of sea products
etc. The second petitioner is also a sea man. The petitioner is an income
tax payee and being head of Fishermen community in their village, the
petitioners were not depending upon any person for the sake of money at
any point of time and also having good reputation in their village. The
defacto complainant inorder to avoid income tax problems requested the
first petitioner to open an account in her name to make transactions for her
business purpose and also used to transfer money in the said account and
asked the first petitioner to the persons whom she mentioned. At the
request of the defacto complainant the first petitioner agreed to transfer
money in her father’s account ie., the third petitioner herein. Believing her
friendship as true the petitioners have no doubt in her intention also. The
intention of the defacto complainant is to harass the petitioners, thereby
she filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and the
learned Magistrate also without any prima facie materials had forwarded
the same to the first respondent police without verifying the veracity of the
complaint had registered a case. No offence is made out as against these
petitioners. Infact the first petitioner filed a suit for defamation by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant in
O.S.No.33 of 2022 before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam and the same is
pending. At the instigation of defacto complainant her relative
Rajamanickam filed a suit in O.S. NO.131 of 2022 before the Additional
District Court, Tenkasi and the same is also pending. The petitioners have
not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and a false
complaint has been lodged. The offences under Sections 294(b),120(b),
506(ii), 420 and 34 of IPC would not attract as against these petitioners
and in the absence of any ingredients to attract the above said offences .
The complaint itself is lodged with malafide intention and thereby the
pending proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that the second petitioner is the close family friend of the defacto
complainant and taking advantage of the same he along with others
accused have taken a sum of Rs.1,61,36,000/-. Though the defacto
complainant has entrusted 252 grams of gold to the petitioner they have
never returned the jewels nor repaid the money and cheated the defacto
complainant. They have also taken four cell phones worth about
Rs.1,62,000/-, hence she lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
Magistrate, Tenkasi and the Magistrate applied his mind and passed a
judicial order that there are prima facie materials available to constitute the
offence and thereby forwarded the complaint to the first respondent police
and they registered a case and thereafter they conducted detailed
investigation and filed final report. There are so many allegations as
against these petitioners and the same can only be tested through trial,
therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent would submit that the defacto complainant filed a petition
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2022
and the same was forwarded to the first respondent police and they
registered a case. Thereafter they conducted detailed investigation and
filed final report. The trial Court after satisfying that there are prima facie
materials available had taken cognizance and the same is pending and it is
matter for trial, thereby the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The second respondent lodged a complaint before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and the same was forwarded to the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
respondent and the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.98 of
2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b),120(b),506(ii), 420 and 34 of
IPC. As per the allegations there are some money transactions between the
parties and the petitioners received a sum of Rs.1,61,36,000/- but the same
was not repaid. Apart from money transaction the second respondent also
entrusted custody of 118 sovereigns of gold jewels to the petitioners and
the same was not returned. Therefore there are serious allegations against
the petitioners, thereby it needs elaborate trial. It is admitted that no
charges have been framed. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate
decision while framing charges based on the available materials. Therefore
the matter needs elaborate trial and at this stage the case cannot be
quashed, since there are serious allegations to constitute the offence,
therefore the petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
8. At this juncture, t he learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
relied on the following judgments:
a) Vijay Kumar Ghai .vs. The State of West Bengal
b) Kishan Singh (D) through L.Rs .vs. Gurpal Singh and Ors
c) Paramjeet Batra .vs. State of Uttarkhand reported in (2013)11
SCC 673
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
d)Mariam Fasihuddin and another .vs. State of Adugodi Police
Station and another
e)Mano .vs. State of Kerala reported in 2015 SCC Online Ker 22214
9. On careful perusal of the above said judgments they will not be
applicable to the present facts of the case. In this case there are some
serious allegations and the learned Magistrate also after applying his
judicial mind forwarded the complaint to the first respondent and the first
respondent police conducted detailed investigation and filed final report .
As per the investigation there are prima facie materials available , thereby
the case laws referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. Accordingly the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
25.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi
2. The Inspector of Police
Sendhamarai Police Station
Tenkasi District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
P.DHANABAL,J.
aav
25.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
