Mr.S.Bharath v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.04.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.Nos.7506 to 7514 of 2016 S.Bharath ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.7506 of 2016 Ranjana Rani ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.7507 of 2016 Y.Antony ArunPrasad ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.7508 of 2016 S.Devi ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.7509 of 2016 J.Lohitha ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.7510 of 2016 M.Janakiram ... Petitioner in Crl.oP.7511 of 2016 Dinesh Singh Dalpatia.. Petitioner in Crl.oP.7512 of 2016 M.Jayanthi .. Petitioner in Crl.OP.7513 of 2016 K.V.M.Maharaja .. Petitioner in Crl.OP.7514 of 2016 Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, EOW-II, Chennai.

2.R.V.Narmadha 3.The Commissioner of Police, No.132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

... Respondents in all CRl.OP's Prayer in all Crl.O.Ps:

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the first respondent to investigate into complaints in Crime No.88 of 2015 and to file a final report now pending on the file of EOW-II and subsequently direct them to furnish the assets belonging to the second respondent within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias for R1 and R3 Additional Public Prosecutor

COMMON ORDER Since all these petitions have been filed to issue a direction to the first respondent, to investigate into the complaints in Crime No.88 of 2015 and to file a final report now pending on the file of EOW-II, all these petitions are disposed of by a common order.

2.The grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent was engaged and involved in the business of running Maxi Cab Car in the name and style of India Track Call Taxi and was further made to understand that the second respondent was having office at No.100, Mullai Street, Brindavan Nagar, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107 and she was offering a scheme for hiring Maxi Cab Car and she promoted the scheme through SMS to various people.

3.It is the further contention that many people like the petitioners herein lured by the promises and deposited huge sum running to several Crores. It is the further contention that after due negotiations with the second respondent, an agreement was entered between the second respondent and the petitioners for a period ranging from 12 months to 60 months and as per the agreement, the second respondent had agreed to deposit a substantial amount in the name of the petitioners per month. Though the second respondent was fulfilling her commitment as per the agreement, she has abruptly stopped to pay the returns to the petitioners as per their respective agreements.

4.In this regard, one Venkatakrishnan lodged a complaint as against the second respondent and the same was registered in Crime No.88 of 2015. Since the same was pending with the third respondent, the present petitions have been filed. 5.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that investigation is going on and it would take considerable time to complete the investigation and to file final report.

6.Considering the submissions made on both sides, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No. 88 of 2015 and to file the final report, as expeditiously as possible.

7.The Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of with the above direction.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, EOW-II, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner of Police, No.132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

+9 ccs to Mr.Aravind Subramaniyam Advocate sr.5807 to 5815 /16 Crl.O.P.Nos.7506 to aa21/04/2016