Vinothini, v. The State Rep By Its,T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.02.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.17219 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10551 of 2017 1.Vinothini 2.Daniel Ranjan ... Petitioners/(Accused) Vs.

1. State by Public Prosecutor, Representing, the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team III, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007 ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.S.Pandi ... 2nd Respondent/Defecto Complaiant PRAYER:This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to Crime No.97 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent, CCB, EDF II, Team III, Vepery, Chennai and quash the same.

For 1st Petitioner : Dr.Deepan and Uday For 2nd Petitioner : Mr.Pravin Rathinam For 1st Respondent: Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor For 2nd Respondent: Mr.K.Sankaran

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to Crime No.97 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent, CCB, EDF II, Team III, Vepery, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the first petitioner would submit

that as alleged by second respondent she has not cheated him. He further submits that the second respondent is the maternal grandfather of the first petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the second petitioner would submit that as alleged by the second respondent, he did not conspire with his wife, namely the first petitioner for the sale of the his property at Chennai and never misappropriated money.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would submit that the there are so many allegations against the petitioners by the second respondent and since the investigation is at the initial stage the same has to go on in detail.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the petitioners have cheated to the tune of more than Rs.15 crores and as such he sought for the dismissal of the petitioner.

6. Considering that there are so many allegations against the petitioners and as contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the investigation has to be conducted in depth, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. It is also seen that petitioners are none other than the grand daughter and her husband of the defacto complainant.

7. Considering the relationship between them, the first respondent is directed to consider the relationship between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and after giving opportunities to the parties concerned, complete the investigation by giving opportunity to the petitioners as well as the second respondent and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

8. With the above directions, this Criminal Original petition is disposed of. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar lok

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team III, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

+1cc to Mr.R.Venkatraman, Advocate, S.R.No.11187 +1cc to Mr.K.Sankaran, Advocate, S.R.No.10396 Crl.O.P.No.17219 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10551 of 2017 SV(CO) GSP(06/03/2019)