Amaravathy, F/A 53 Yrs, v. State By The Inspector Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.02.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.3341 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 Amaravathy

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. State by, The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.

2. V.R.Velusamy, 21/1, Babukhan Street, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,to call for the records of the first respondent and quash the final report made in C.C.No.264 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathi For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1 No Appearance, for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.264 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as second accused in C.C.No.264 of 2013. She has nothing to do with the matter as alleged by the prosecution. Further, the learned counsel submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution, the first accused only entered into an sale agreement with the de-facto complainant and received a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. The petitioner was neither a party nor witness to the sale agreement. Further, she did not receive any share from the first accused, and she has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for quashing the entire proceedings.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the case on hand, the petitioner is arrayed as second accused and her brother is arrayed as first accused. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and her brother received a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- for selling the petrol bunk, which was running under the name and style of M/s.Radhakrishnan Petrol Oil Bunk. The first accused approached the defacto complainant to sell the petrol bunk for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. In turn, they received a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- and thereafter, failed to change the licence in favour of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint. The petitioner and her brother, as legal heir of their father received a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- and shared equally. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed for quashing the entire proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.

5. There are two accused, in which, the petitioner is arrayed as second accused. Though the first accused only entered into the sale agreement with the de-facto complainant, the petitioner as the sister of the first accused, she is also having a share in the petrol bunk. Further, it is seen from the statement recorded from the complainant and other witnesses that there are categorical averments to implicate the petitioner. Therefore, there are evidences and materials to connect the petitioner in all the charges as submitted by the prosecutor. However, the points raised by the petitioner involves question of facts. Therefore, it has to be established only before the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

However, petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the Trial Court.

313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the judgment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. pvs Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet 2.The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

+1cc to Mr.N.Umapathi, Advocate, SR.No. 13741 +1cc to Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan, Advocate, SR.No. 14309 Crl.O.P.No.3341 of 2014 Kak(02/05/2019)