High Court · 2024
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :21.03.2024CORAM :THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVICrl.O.P.No.5099 of 2022andCrl.M.P.Nos.2737 & 2793 of 2022Raja Chidambaram ... PetitionerVersus1.The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-I, Team-I, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.2.S.R.M.S.Narayana Chettiyar ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.9619 of 2021 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.For Petitioner: Mr.K.M.Kali CharanFor R1: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate Crl.SideFor R2: Mr.P.L.Narayanan, Senior Counsel for Mr.E.Hariharan1\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022O R D E RThe petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records in C.C.No.9619 of 2021 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.2. Heard Mr.K.M.Kalicharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate Crl.Side appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned senior Counsel for Mr.E.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner / Raja Chidambaram appeared in person before this Court.3. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that one late Rajanarayanan (who was the 1st Accused in CC.No.9619 of 2021) was well known to his family and that late Rajanarayanan would return with higher interest for the money entrusted with him. The defacto complainant believing late Rajanarayanan had entrusted a sum of Rs.4,65,04,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Sixty Five Lakhs and Four Thousand only) to him and had asked the same to be deposited in various accounts in his name and that of his family members. Late Rajanarayanan was also in good relationship 2\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022with various bank officials including the employees of Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Adyar Branch and their higher officials. Under such circumstances late Rajanarayanan had opened accounts with Adyar Branch of Lakshmi Vilas Bank in the name of Mr.S.R.M.S.Narayana Chettiar, the defacto complainant, his family members and that of the two trusts managed by the defacto complainant and his family. On opening the said accounts, late Rajanarayanan had further opened a number of Fixed Deposit Accounts. The late Rajanarayanan was the one who was dealing with their bank accounts. Further it is also admitted by that though the FDA receipt were initially with the defacto complainant, late Rajanarayanan had received the same from Mr.Vaidhyanathan, a clerk working for the defacto comp' for the purpose of renewing the FDAs and thereafter not returned the same to the defacto complainant. Late Rajanarayanan had without the consent of the defacto complainant had illegally availed loan by using the FD's in the name of Shri Umayal Achi, the wife of the defacto complainant as securities. The defacto complainant approached late Rajanarayanan for availing loan for his son, Shri N.Subramanian, late Rajanarayanan had without consent of the defacto complainant had availed loan by using the FDs in the the name of trusts managed by the defacto complainant and transferred the same to the account of Shri N.Subramanian having account maintained with Indian 3\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022Overseas Bank. The monthly installments for the said loan were also entrusted with late Rajanarayanan out of which he diverted and used an amount of Rs.28,00,000/- for his own enrichment and that all his nefarious deeds came to light only when Shri N.Sathappan went to the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Adyar Branch to remit monthly installment for the loan availed by him and was found that there were two accounts in his name while he had given consent for opening of only one account. Thereafter on enquiry made by the defacto complainant with late Rajanarayanan , it was revealed that late Rajanarayanan had defrauded the defacto complainant and his family members and had availed loans illegally and have used the same for his own enrichment. It is also admitted by the defacto complainant that on enquiry late Rajanarayanan acceded all his wrong doings and he did everything on the the instruction of R.Thangappan, who is the employee of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Adyar Branch was not aware of the same. It has also been stated by the defacto complainant that on demanding proof as to the involvement of late R.Thangappan, late Rajanarayanan had gave the defacto complainant few cheques were given to Rajanarayanan by R.Thangappan and late Rajanarayanan further admitted that he had paid about Rs.4,00,00,000/- to R.Thangappan.4\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 20224. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Rajanarayanan / A1 was closely associated with the family members of the defacto complainant, to whom he entrusted to deal with the bank transactions. Accordingly, by opening accounts in the name of trust, loans by defacto complainant in the Fixed Deposit receipts were received through the said A1, availing loans in the name of A2, and diverting the loan amount to the account of Umayal Achi. Subsequently, the defacto complainant came to know about the fraudulent act by the said A1, who illegally availed loans by fabricating the signature of Umayal Achi unlawfully. Furthermore, three cheques were given to Umayal Achi by one Thangappan through different means. A1 transferred a sum of Rs.4 crores to the said Thangappan by operating the accounts of the defacto complainant, his family members, and trust. Therefore, he gave representation to claim. Now, A1 / Rajanarayanan died, therefore, the amount transferred to Thangappan was not added as an accused in this Case for the first time known to the prosecution. Therefore, more than 6 Crores involved due to the loan availed by R1 in the Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Now, the manager of the bank, according to the defacto complainant / the Manager submits that Rajanarayanan used to operate the account of R2 as well as his family members and he was very well known to 5\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022all the bank staff. Therefore, under the good faith this petitioner obtained the account in the name of R2's wife name and availed loan facilities.5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) raised strong objections, stating that without the presence of the account holder / Umayal Achi, the petitioner opened the account in her name. Based on the documents given by A1, all were forged, and documents without proper investigation, the loan was availed by A1 and others, which was revealed during the investigation. It is also noted by this Court, under the instruction of one Thangappan, a sum of Rs.4 crores was transferred from Rajanarayanan to the said Thangappan as legal gratification.6. As per the final report, this petitioner also illegally gratified by availing a loan to A1 whether he granted the loan with due indulgence or based on negligence will be proved only at the time of trial. Considering the gravity of the offense committed by the petitioner, this Court declines to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.9619 of 2021 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 6\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 20227. The respondent police are directed to take steps to secure Thangappan was received a sum of Rs.4 Crores from the said Rajanarayanan. However, the petitioner is now aged about 65 years. The personal appearance of the petitioner is ordered to be dispensed with before the trial Court. The respondent police are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible and if any material evidence, produced before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge is directed to complete the trial within a period of 6 months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 21.03.2024Index : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking orderNeutral Citation:Yes/NorriTo1. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.2.The Section Officer, VR-Section, High Court of Madras.7\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.rriCrl.O.P.No.5099 of 2022andCrl.M.P.Nos.2737 & 2793 of 202221.03.20248\8
Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :21.03.2024CORAM :THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVICrl.O.P.No.5099 of 2022andCrl.M.P.Nos.2737 & 2793 of 2022Raja Chidambaram ... PetitionerVersus1.The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-I, Team-I, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.2.S.R.M.S.Narayana Chettiyar ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.9619 of 2021 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.For Petitioner: Mr.K.M.Kali CharanFor R1: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate Crl.SideFor R2: Mr.P.L.Narayanan, Senior Counsel for Mr.E.Hariharan1\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022O R D E RThe petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records in C.C.No.9619 of 2021 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.2. Heard Mr.K.M.Kalicharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate Crl.Side appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned senior Counsel for Mr.E.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner / Raja Chidambaram appeared in person before this Court.3. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that one late Rajanarayanan (who was the 1st Accused in CC.No.9619 of 2021) was well known to his family and that late Rajanarayanan would return with higher interest for the money entrusted with him. The defacto complainant believing late Rajanarayanan had entrusted a sum of Rs.4,65,04,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Sixty Five Lakhs and Four Thousand only) to him and had asked the same to be deposited in various accounts in his name and that of his family members. Late Rajanarayanan was also in good relationship 2\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022with various bank officials including the employees of Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Adyar Branch and their higher officials. Under such circumstances late Rajanarayanan had opened accounts with Adyar Branch of Lakshmi Vilas Bank in the name of Mr.S.R.M.S.Narayana Chettiar, the defacto complainant, his family members and that of the two trusts managed by the defacto complainant and his family. On opening the said accounts, late Rajanarayanan had further opened a number of Fixed Deposit Accounts. The late Rajanarayanan was the one who was dealing with their bank accounts. Further it is also admitted by that though the FDA receipt were initially with the defacto complainant, late Rajanarayanan had received the same from Mr.Vaidhyanathan, a clerk working for the defacto comp' for the purpose of renewing the FDAs and thereafter not returned the same to the defacto complainant. Late Rajanarayanan had without the consent of the defacto complainant had illegally availed loan by using the FD's in the name of Shri Umayal Achi, the wife of the defacto complainant as securities. The defacto complainant approached late Rajanarayanan for availing loan for his son, Shri N.Subramanian, late Rajanarayanan had without consent of the defacto complainant had availed loan by using the FDs in the the name of trusts managed by the defacto complainant and transferred the same to the account of Shri N.Subramanian having account maintained with Indian 3\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022Overseas Bank. The monthly installments for the said loan were also entrusted with late Rajanarayanan out of which he diverted and used an amount of Rs.28,00,000/- for his own enrichment and that all his nefarious deeds came to light only when Shri N.Sathappan went to the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Adyar Branch to remit monthly installment for the loan availed by him and was found that there were two accounts in his name while he had given consent for opening of only one account. Thereafter on enquiry made by the defacto complainant with late Rajanarayanan , it was revealed that late Rajanarayanan had defrauded the defacto complainant and his family members and had availed loans illegally and have used the same for his own enrichment. It is also admitted by the defacto complainant that on enquiry late Rajanarayanan acceded all his wrong doings and he did everything on the the instruction of R.Thangappan, who is the employee of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Adyar Branch was not aware of the same. It has also been stated by the defacto complainant that on demanding proof as to the involvement of late R.Thangappan, late Rajanarayanan had gave the defacto complainant few cheques were given to Rajanarayanan by R.Thangappan and late Rajanarayanan further admitted that he had paid about Rs.4,00,00,000/- to R.Thangappan.4\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 20224. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Rajanarayanan / A1 was closely associated with the family members of the defacto complainant, to whom he entrusted to deal with the bank transactions. Accordingly, by opening accounts in the name of trust, loans by defacto complainant in the Fixed Deposit receipts were received through the said A1, availing loans in the name of A2, and diverting the loan amount to the account of Umayal Achi. Subsequently, the defacto complainant came to know about the fraudulent act by the said A1, who illegally availed loans by fabricating the signature of Umayal Achi unlawfully. Furthermore, three cheques were given to Umayal Achi by one Thangappan through different means. A1 transferred a sum of Rs.4 crores to the said Thangappan by operating the accounts of the defacto complainant, his family members, and trust. Therefore, he gave representation to claim. Now, A1 / Rajanarayanan died, therefore, the amount transferred to Thangappan was not added as an accused in this Case for the first time known to the prosecution. Therefore, more than 6 Crores involved due to the loan availed by R1 in the Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Now, the manager of the bank, according to the defacto complainant / the Manager submits that Rajanarayanan used to operate the account of R2 as well as his family members and he was very well known to 5\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022all the bank staff. Therefore, under the good faith this petitioner obtained the account in the name of R2's wife name and availed loan facilities.5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) raised strong objections, stating that without the presence of the account holder / Umayal Achi, the petitioner opened the account in her name. Based on the documents given by A1, all were forged, and documents without proper investigation, the loan was availed by A1 and others, which was revealed during the investigation. It is also noted by this Court, under the instruction of one Thangappan, a sum of Rs.4 crores was transferred from Rajanarayanan to the said Thangappan as legal gratification.6. As per the final report, this petitioner also illegally gratified by availing a loan to A1 whether he granted the loan with due indulgence or based on negligence will be proved only at the time of trial. Considering the gravity of the offense committed by the petitioner, this Court declines to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.9619 of 2021 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 6\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 20227. The respondent police are directed to take steps to secure Thangappan was received a sum of Rs.4 Crores from the said Rajanarayanan. However, the petitioner is now aged about 65 years. The personal appearance of the petitioner is ordered to be dispensed with before the trial Court. The respondent police are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible and if any material evidence, produced before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge is directed to complete the trial within a period of 6 months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 21.03.2024Index : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking orderNeutral Citation:Yes/NorriTo1. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.2.The Section Officer, VR-Section, High Court of Madras.7\8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5099 of 2022T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.rriCrl.O.P.No.5099 of 2022andCrl.M.P.Nos.2737 & 2793 of 202221.03.20248\8