Ameena Bagam v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Crl.OP.No.22517 of 2023 and Crl.MP.Nos.15709 and 15711 of 2023
1. Ameena Bagam
2. Samsudeen ... Petitioners Vs.
State Rep by
1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram District.
Cr.No.3 of 2021
2. Krishnan ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2023 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-1, Villupuram. For Petitioners : Mr.R.John Sathyan Senior Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
O R D E R
1/5
The petition is to quash the final report in C.C.No.10 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram.
2. The brief facts involved in this case are that the house property in Mano Garden, Villupuram, was purchased by one Krishnan on 02.04.2016 for a sum of Rs.11,60,800/- and the said house was pledged to REPCO Bank, Villupuram. Later, the said Krishnan sold it to one Ameena Bagam and Samsudeen for a sum of Rs.23,50,000/- from the same consideration. The loan in REPCO Bank was discharged. After purchasing the property, Ameena Bagam sought loan from Indian Bank to put up construction and therefore sought for issuance of patta. Thereafter, she came to know the fact that Poromboke Water Canal is passing through the land and therefore, patta cannot be issued and this was brought to the notice of the said Krishnan, he in turn, informed his vendor namely Latha Kasthuri Krishnan. Later Ameena Bagam and Krishnan have decided to reconvey the property back on payment of Rs.23,00,000/-. It is stated that Ameena Bagam also received Rs.8,00,000/- after agreeing to re-convey the property. While so, when Ameena Bagam was making alteration in the building and he was 2/5
questioned by Krishnan, In this connection, wordy quarrel has erupted leading to registration of complaint for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 294(b) of IPC at the instance of Krishnan.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused Ameena Bagam has submitted that the final report filed on completion of investigation does not carry the necessary ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 406 and 420 and 294 (b) of IPC.
4. It is contended that there was no intention of cheating or breach of trust and also contended that the very averment of receiving Rs.8,00,000/- on promise to re-convey the property itself is doubtful. However, on reading of 161Cr.P.C Statement of the witness and the fact that receipt of Rs.8,00,000/- in cash been recorded in an agreement in the presence of witnesses in the Stamp Paper primafacie indicates that the petitioner had made some alteration in the building which she has promised to re-convey and also received Rs.8,00,000/- as part of consideration, where the said agreement is executed by for consideration and consent the matter for trial.
5. The denial of receiving Rs.8,00,000/- from the defacto 3/5
complainant which is contrary to the content found in the agreement and the validity of the reconveyance agreement to be decided in the course of the trial whether offence under Section 406 and 428 IPC made out or not to be decided. Hence, petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Vv 09.10.2023 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-1, Villupuram.
2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
4/5
Vv 09.10.2023 5/5