THE HONOURABLE MR v. The State of Tamil Nadurepresented by Inspector of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.08.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.16209 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007Manoj Kumar Lulla.. Petitioner.Versus1.The State of Tamil Nadurepresented by Inspector of Police,Economic Offences Wing -II,Egmore, Chennai – 600 002.2.V. Vijayakumar.. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to to call for theRecords in FIR in Crime No 3 of 2007 dated 14.5.2007 on the file ofthe 1st Respondent and quash the same.For Petitioner : M/s. P.R. RamanFor Respondent-1 : Mr. R. Muniappa raj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)For Respondent-2 : M/s. G.K. SekarO R D E RThe petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original PetitionNo. 16209 of 2007 to call for the Records in FIR in Crime No 3 of2007 dated 14.5.2007 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash thesame. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The petitioner submitted in his complaint that he hasreceived a notice dated 29.5.2007 addressed to his late father, andhimself, from the Inspector of Police, Economic Offenses WingSt.Thomas Mount, Chennai, dated 28.5.2007 under Sections 160 and 91Cr.P.C. The petitioner was asked to appear before the firstRespondent on 31.5.2007 at 10.30 a.m. The notice required that thepetitioner and his late father to bring the following documentsnamely (a) any agreement between the petitioner and his father on oneside and the 2nd respondent on the other (b) cheque, DD andpartnership dead.3.After the receipt of the first Respondent's notice, thepetitioner was represented by his counsel before the firstrespondent. Then it was found that the FIR had been lodged by thesecond Respondent before the first Respondent accusing the petitionerand his late father for offences under Sections 420 and 506(2) ofI.P.C.4.After getting the FIR copy, the petitioner has alleged thatthe FIR is false and baseless. As per the allegations in the FIR, thepetitioner and his father had approached the second respondent on4.1.2005 for financial assistance for an alleged Chit Fund business.The second respondent parted with Rs.62 lakhs and the same was notrepaid. After negotiations, the petitioner and his father promised abungalow type residence to the second respondent as settlement. Asthis was not done, the second respondent again approached thepetitioner and his father, when the petitioner threatened the secondrespondent that he would engage rowdies to eliminate his familymembers. Subsequently, the rowdies approached the second respondentas well as called him over the phone and threatened to murder him.The second respondent feared for his life and that of his familymembers and so has lodged a complaint with the first respondent.5.Further, the petitioner contended that neither has thesecond respondent appeared before the first respondent tosubstantiate his claim nor does the FIR even referred to documents insupport of the second respondents allegations.6.Further, the occurrence, of the alleged offences, is statedin the FIR, to have occurred on 4.1.2005 long after the death of thepetitioner's father, the complaint, has been filed by the secondrespondent before the first respondent on 17.4.2006. The reason forthe delay is squarely attributed to the second respondent in the FIR.It also appears that the second Respondent has approached this Courtin Criminal Original Petition No.7231 of 2003. By order dated20.3.2007, the first respondent has been directed to register FIR.It is pertinent to add here that the petitioner was not impleaded asa respondent in the said Criminal Original Petition. The petitionerfurther submitted that there has been no such transactions as alleged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the second respondent in his complaint and relevantly, neither thepetitioner nor his late father have ever been engaged in Chit fundbusiness. In April 2006, 3 envelopes were delivered at thepetitioner's address and his mother. The envelopes were empty. Thepetitioners father was no more, and this fact was suppressed beforethe Court and also before the first respondent by the secondrespondent.7.On the basis of the complaint given by the Defactocomplainant, i.e., the second respondent herein, the first respondentregistered a case stating that the petitioner and his father receivedRs.62 lakhs for his chit fund business, and that the said amount wasnot repaid and hence negotiation was conducted, and that in itsconclusion the petitioner had agreed to provide a house, and as thiswas not done, the petitioner had cheated the second respondent.Subsequently, the petitioners had threatened the second respondentfor his life. This complaint also has been registered on thestrength of order passed by this Honourable Court in CriminalOriginal Petition No.7231 of 2003 dated 20.3.2007.8.The second respondent herein filed his counter statementand narrated his case that he has a good financial background, thatthe father of the petitioner approached him as if he has plots atAnna Nagar, Chennai which had been allotted by the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard. Further, the petitioner's father was a big industrialist andhad registered office at Royapattah. The petitioner's fatherrequested the second respondent to give Rs.30 lakhs. On the basis ofagreement, the amount was paid by the second respondent. As peragreement, the respondent became a partner of one Kalyanamandapam atAnna Nagar. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the secondrespondent and the petitioner regarding the said transaction.9.Further, on 24.3.2002, the father of the petitioner hadreceived Rs.22 lakhs, thereafter on 9.5.2003 had received Rs.4.75lakhs, and on 29.3.2003 had received Rs. 2.25 lakhs from the secondrespondent. All these said money transactions had happened on thebasis of the business and construction of Kalyanamandapam and onprovision of a house to the second respondent. This was not done bythe petitioners. But the second respondent believed the petitionersand released the fund to the petitioners. Finally the petitioners hadcheated the second respondent with malafide intention. Further, thepetitioners had engaged goondas and threatened the second respondentin connection with the dispute. This has been the allegation of thesecond respondent herein in his counter.10.Considering the contentions of the petitioner, secondrespondent, counter statements and arguments of the Learned Counselfor the petitioners, Learned Counsel for State and Learned Counselfor second respondent, the Court is of the view, that as per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ direction of this Honourable Court in Criminal Original PetitionNo.7231 of 2003, the case was registered as Crime No.3 of 2007, underSections 420 and 506 (ii) of IPC. Further, the case has to be triednecessarily in the interest of Justice. Hence, the Criminal OriginalPetition No.16209 of 2007 has got to be dismissed and accordingly,dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar mraTo1.Inspector of Police,Economic Offences Wing -II,Egmore, Chennai – 600 002.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.16209 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007vs(co)pmk.20.08.2009