Jansi Rani, v. The Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.251 of 2018, and they have filed this petition to quash the proceedings against them,on the basis of the crime No.118 of 2017, investigated by the first respondent police, on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent.

¶2The first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2017, against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent. The second respondent married the first petitioner as his second wife. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. The second respondent retired from his service on 23.04.2016 as a General Manager of the Trichy BHEL Corporation. He obtained the retirement benefit of Rs.31,98,000/-. The first petitioner as a wife of the second respondent received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the second respondent, upon making a false promise that higher interest would be given by by making deposit in second petitioner's account. The first petitioner made a promise to the defacto complainant/second respondent that if the amount was deposited in the name of the second respondent in the senior citizen's account, it would generate more interest and hence, she received the amount and deposited in her name. Thereafter, she did not repay the interest. In the meantime, there is a dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent. The first petitioner filed the divorce original petition before the jurisdictional Court and he demanded the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- but the same was not repaid by the petitioner. Therefore, he made a complaint before the first respondent police and the same was registered in Crime No.118 of 2017 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The same was investigated by the investigating officer and the final report was filed. It was taken on file in C.C.No.251of 2018, by the Judicial Magistrate No-VI, Tiruchirappalli. To quash the proceedings, the present quash petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by taking the entire allegation made in the FIR and in the final report no criminality is found place. Even as per the allegation, the amount was received to deposit in the name of the second petitioner. It is also admitted that the same was deposited and the interest was paid for some time. Hence, this is a purely money transaction and the criminal colour was given to the civil dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was a dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. Hence, there was a exchange of legal notice and finally, the divorce petition was filed by the second respondent. In the meantime, the second respondent withdrew the amount deposited in the name of the first petitioner by forging her signature. Therefore, she made a complaint to the jurisdictional police to take action against him for withdrawal of the amount by forging her signature and the same was registered in Crime No.19 of 2017 dated 20.07.2017. As a counter blast the present complaint was made with malafide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the petition in H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2017 and in the legal notice it is stated that the petitioner obtained the loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from him. Hence, the allegation that they obtained the amount to deposit in the name of the second respondent with an intention to generate more interest is not correct and the same is false one. He seeks for quashing of FIR and he relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(i). Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336

(ii) 2013 6 SCC 470

(iii). B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 107

(iv). Rashmi Jain v. State of U.P., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 553

(v). V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 78

¶4The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that there is no bar to initiate the criminal proceedings in the case of cheating committed by the petitioners. In this case, there is a clear misrepresentation at the inception on the part of the first petitioner to receive the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in order to deposit in the name of the second petitioner, so as to generate higher interest from the in the status of senior citizen account. Therefore, the criminal offence is made out. He also submitted that the allegation in Crime No. 19 of 2017 is not proved and the same is false.The amount was taken by the petitioners and the second respondent is a nominee of the first petitioner. Further, he also relied the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(I).R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739

(ii).Archana Rana v. State of U.P., reported in (2021) 3 SCC 751

(iii).Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2022) 14 SCC 572 (Live Law 2021 SC 592)

(iv). Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2021) 16 SCC 142

(v) 1999 8 SCC 686,

(vi). Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191

(vii). CBI v. Arvind Khanna, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686

(viii). State of Telangana v. Managipet, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 87 Based on the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he seeks for dismissal of the quash petition on the ground that the defence of the petitioner cannot be looked into and no case has been made out by the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶5The learned Public Prosecutor also reiterated the said argument of the defacto complainant namely the second respondent herein and stated that now the investigating agency found that there is a criminality in the transaction and also filed the final report under Section 409 and 420 of IPC. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of this petition.

¶6This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the materials available on records and also the precedents relied upon by them.

¶7The investigating officer filed the following final report: rhl;rp?1

KUifahjpUr;rpbgy;

epWtdj;jpy; bghJnkyhsuhfgzpg[hpe;J

23/04/2016

e;njjp Xa;t[ bgw;Ws;shh;/ rhl;rp?1 KUifah. 1tJ vjphp $hd;rpuhzpia 2?tJ jpUkzk; bra;Js;shh;/ thjp KUifaht[f;F Xa;t{jpagydhf 4/5/16e;njjp U:/20.99.000-? k;. 12/5/16 e;njjp U:/10.99.000-? fpilj;Js;sJ/ 2?tJ vjphp fkyh rPdpah; rpl;ord; vd;gjhy; fkyh bgahpy; nkw;go gzj;ij blgh!pl; bra;jhy; mjpftl;o fpilf;Fk; vd;W 1?tJ vjphp $hd;rpuhzp. 2?tJ vjphpfkyht[k;

rhl;rp?1

KUifahtplk;

Mir thh;j;ijfs; Twpa[s;sdh;/ rhl;rp?1 Kuifah mth;fsJ Mir thh;j;ijfis ek;gp 17/5/16 e;njjp U:/15.00.000-? yl;rj;ij ifyhrg[uk; SBI t';fpapYs;s jdJA/C No. 10891436989-ypUe;J 1. 2?tJ vjphpfspd; kJiu muruo SBI t';fp fzf;F vz;/10169780084 fzf;fpw;F thjp mDg;gpa[s;shh;/ gpwF fkyh bgahpYs;s mnj t';fp fpisapy; fzf;F vz;/35782027353? vd;w fzf;fpw;F U:/15.00.000-? j;ij khw;wp gpwF mnj t';fpapYs;s fkyh bgahpYs;s A/C No.35782316141?vd;w fzf;fpw;F U:/15.00.000-? khw;wpa[s;shh;/ nkw;go blgh!pl; gzj;jpw;F 01?07?16?e;njjp U:/13.000-? k; Kjy; fhyhz;ow;Fk; 31?12? 16?e; njjp U:/28.000-?k; K:d;whtJ fhyhz;ow;F tl;oahf thjp Kuifahtpw;F mDg;gpa[s;shh;/ mjd;gpwF rhl;rp? 1f;Fk;. 1?tJ vjphpf;Fk; fUj;J ntWghL Vw;gl;L gphpe;J tpthfuj;J tHf;F jpUr;rp rg;nfhh;l;oy; epYitapy; cs;sJ/ mjdhy; jw;bghGJ rhl;rp?1 jd;Dila gzj;ij jpUg;gp jUkhW vjphpfsplk; nfl;ljw;F juKoahJ vd;W Twp nkw;go U:/15.00.000-?k; vjphpfs; Fore closure bra;J rhl;rp?1f;F bjhpahky; vLj;Jrhl;rp?f;Fjuhky;

nkhrobra;Js;shh;/

vdnt vjphpfspd; ,r;bra;if ,/j/r/gphpt[ 406. 420 ? d;gojz;lidf;FhpabrayhFk;/ From the reading of above final report, it is clear that the second respondent married the first petitioner as his second wife. He retired from Trichy BHELCompany on

23.04.2016. He received the retirement benefit of Rs.31,98,000/- and the same was obtained by the first petitioner in order to deposit the same in the name of the second petitioner so as to generate more interest in the status of senior citizen. After depositing the same, she paid the interest for two installments. Subsequently, she refused to pay the interest and also repay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. From the above averments, it is clear that there is a money transaction between the husband and wife. Further in the reply notice and the petition in H.M.O.P.169 of 2017, the second respondent stated that he granted a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to the first petitioner. The said averment is as follows: Averment in the H.M.O.P.Petition Averment in the legal notice The petitioner has provided a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 17.05.2016 believing that all the disputes will come to end if the petitioner provided loan to the mother of the respondent but the respondent is harassing more after the loan has been provided to the mother of the respondent My client states that the second of you was insisting to give a loan to the first of you and my client be made as a nominee for the Bank account, along with full rights to operate the account through net banking My client states that in order to satisfy and as insisted by the second of you to provide loan to the first of you, my client had electronic transfer on 17th May 2016, to SBI bank account No.10169780084 held by the first of you at Madurai.

¶8Considering the relationship and also the nature of transaction as stated above, the continuation of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner is illegal and hence, this Court is inclined to quash the petition. This Court also finds that the elements of the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are not available in this case. It is settled law that in the case of failure to repay the amount, it is open to the defacto complainant to file a suit for recovery of amount in the manner known to law. Further in this case, there was no entrustment even as per the averment in the legal notice and the H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2017. He handed over a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as a loan. In the said circumstances, his remedy is only to file civil suit. Without filing the civil suit, he filed this criminal complaint and the same was erroneously entertained by the jurisdictional police officer and culminated into final report and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.251 of 2018. Hence, the entire process of registration of case that culminated into C.C.No.251 of 2018 requires to be quashed. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding. Both the parties relied on a number of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgments relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the present case.

¶9From the above fact, it is clear that the disputebetween the parties is purely a money transaction and hence, the initiation of the criminal proceedings is abuse of process of law and hence, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings.

10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.

12.03.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sbn To

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, Boiler Plant Police Station, Trichy.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶4The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.1132 & 1133 of 2019

12.03.2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 13.12.2023 Pronounced On 12.03.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.1132 & 1133 of 2019 1.Jansi Rani 2.Kamala ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Boiler Plant Police Station, Trichy (Crime No.118 of 2017) 2.M.Murugaiya ... Resondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.251 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Trichy and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 : Mr.G.Anto Prince for R2