Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/482/2016dismissed

R. Sahana Sundarai v. The Inspector Of Police

2016-04-18Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.OP(MD) No.482 of 2016 R.Sahana Sundarai ..Petitioner Vs 1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, D1 Thallakulam Police Station (Crime) Madurai District 2.R.S.Samynathan 3.Karuppan 4.Mariyappan .. Respondents (R3 and R4 impleaded as respondents vide order of this Court made in Crl.M.P.Nos.3203 and 3204 /2016) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in connection with Crime No.924 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Poornachandran For Respondents :Mrs.S.Prabha for R1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side) Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan for R2 Mr.M.Pitchaimuthu for impleading petitioners

O R D E R

This petition has been filed praying to quash the case in Crime No.924 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2. On a reading of the FIR, it is seen that one Cannaan Exim Limited had collected money from various persons on the promise of getting visa for Canada and thereafter they neither got the Visa nor returned the money.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has nothing to do with Cannan Exim Limited and that she was only appointed as an IELTS Trainer and that she had left for Germany some time in the year 2015.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the de-facto complainants produced prima facie materials to show that the petitioner herein was associated with Cannan Exim Limited.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions, submits that the petitioner did not even cooperate with the police during the course of investigation.

6. In view of the fact that there are prima facie materials, the case of the petitioner does not pass muster the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 for quashing the FIR. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, D1 Thallakulam Police Station (Crime) Madurai District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to Mr.R.SURIYA NARAYANAN, Advocate, SR No.22280 Crl.OP(MD) No.482 of 2016 18.04.2016 RR SH/AAL-MPA:09.05.2016:2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/