Tmt.Logeswari, Aged 36 Years, v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.09.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH Criminal Original Petition No.4414 of 2017 TMT.LOGESWARI ...

petitioner Vs 1 STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT 2 MOHIDEEN BASHA ...

respondents Petition filed to call for the records and quash the first information report registered in Crime No.26 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent as against the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.I.Subramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Paarthiban For respondents : Mr.P.Govindaraj, Addl.P.P. For 1st respondent

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this criminal original petition seeking to quash the first information report registered against her in Crime No.26 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case is that M/s. KPM Kumaragam Chits Private Ltd. was originally run by one Mr.Ramamurthi and his wife Savithiri. The second respondent herein is a subscriber in the chit company. While so, on 21.4.2016, the said Ramamurthi expired. The second respondent herein has given a complaint, which has been registered in Cr.No.26 of 2016 on the

file of the second respondent, wherein, he has named all the legal heirs of the deceased Ramamurthi as accused persons. The petitioner, who is arrayed as the 5th accused, is the daughter of the said Ramamurthi.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is a Central Government employee, working for the Department of Posts. In support of his submission, the learned Senior counsel has drawn my attention to the order of appointment dated 15.02.2008. When the petitioner has been employed with the Department of Posts, she cannot have any nexus with the chit company, either as Director or otherwise. Apart from vague allegations that after the death of Ramamurthi, his legal heirs, including the petitioner, are running the chit company, there is no other material to show that the petitioner is the Director of the company. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to permit the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of investigation.

4. In the result, the original petition is allowed. Investigation insofar as the petitioner is concerned is quashed.

05.09.2017 Index: Yes/no Internet : Yes/no tar To 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

M.S. RAMESH, J.

(tar) Crl.O.P.No.4414 of 2017 05.09.2017