Jamela v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.01.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and Crl.M.P.No.14317 of 2022 Jamela ... Petitioner

Versus

1. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Gudalur Police Station, The Nilgiris.

(Crime No.138 of 2022)

2. Chelladurai ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to F.I.R. in Crime No.138 of 2022 on the file of 1st respondent and quash the said F.I.R.

Page No.1 of 5

For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Franklin For Respondents :

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr. M.P.Raja Velayutham for Mr.S.Draisamy for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.138 of 2022 on the file of 1st respondent police.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The petitioner herein is the accused in the F.I.R. in Crime No.138 of 2022 registered for an offence under Sec.3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.

4. The leaned counsel for petitioner would submit that she is the power of attorney of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant Chelladurai and based on that power of attorney, she executed a sale deed in favour of her Page No.2 of 5

daughter on 12.04.2016 and entire sale consideration was received by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant Chelladurai. But contrary to the terms, now the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant given a false complaint that he borrowed only loan amount and not executed any sale deed nor power of attorney against the terms of sale deed. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that only the power of attorney was given as a security for loan transaction, but the petitioner taking advantage of power of attorney, immediately transferred the property in favour of her daughter and no consideration was paid as stated in the document, thereby he was cheated by the petitioner. In fact, he is a retired teacher and he was put to harassment by the accused. Hence, he raised strong objections.

6. By way of reply, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for 1st respondent would submit that it is a case of cheating and it needs detailed investigation.

7. On perusal of records, it reveals that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is a retired teacher and gave a power of attorney to the Page No.3 of 5

petitioner. Immediately, she executed a sale deed in favour of her daughter and there is no materials placed by the petitioner that the sale consideration was paid to him. So, it needs detailed investigation. Hence, I do not find any irregularity in the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner and this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against her. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as no merit. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 12.01.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpp To

1. Inspector of Police, Gudalur Police Station, The Nilgiris.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.4 of 5

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp CRL.O.P.No.22194 of 2022 12.01.2024 Page No.5 of 5