Franklin v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.M.P.No.16435 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.24034 of 2025

1. M.Agarchand Chordia

2. M.Sureshchand Chordia

3. M.Rameshchand Chordia

4. S.Chandra

5. P.Indra Petitioner(s) Vs V.Kapila Shree Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Abdukumar Rajarathinam Senior Counsel

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the documents placed on record.

2. Though the police has closed the complaint as mistake of fact, the learned Magistrate has allowed the protest petition. The entire allegation with regard to the protest petition as well as the complaint are with regard to the claiming of shares in the properties.

3. The grievance of the defacto complainant is that her share has not been properly provided by the other members of the family.

4. The very complaint itself indicates that the defacto complainant has executed a power of attorney after she attained majority and based on the said power of attorney, properties have been sold. Thereafter, the said private complaint has been abandoned. Now, another private complaint has been filed, which has been taken cognizance, hence there shall be an order of interim stay. Notice to the respondent returnable by 10.10.2025. Private notice is also permitted.

29.08.2025 ssd

To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam.

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., ssd Crl.M.P.No.16435 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.24034 of 2025 29.08.2025