G.Kathiresh Kumar @ Karaikudi v. The Inspector Of Poice,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 11.12.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.3616 & 3617 of 2017 G.Kathiresh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II at Trichy, Trichirappalli District.
2.K.Rajendran .. Respondents [R.2 impleaded vide order of Court dated 16.06.2017, in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5004/17] PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the charges framed against the petitioner in C.C.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the TNPID Court, Madurai, and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents: Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner / seventh accused to quash the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai.
2. The case in C.C.No.4 of 2016 was instituted at the instance of the second respondent / defacto complainant. According to the second respondent, the second accused introduced the first accused Company, namely, M/s.Lando Infrastructure Development (P) Ltd, to him and they have lured the defacto complainant by promising that they would return 200% interest and have collected deposits from him as well as from his wife. For the amounts collected from the defacto complainant, they had also issued a deed of undertaking. When the defacto complainant requested to repay the amount, the 1/3
accused failed to repay the same and therefore, the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and the same was registered in Crime No.3 of 2012, as against seven persons. After investigation, the first respondent Police has filed the charge sheet.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner as well as for the second respondent / defacto complainant.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the first respondent Police, submitted that apart from the defacto complainant, 83 other depositors have also lodged a complaint as if they have also been cheated to the tune of Rs.58,12,964/-. He further submitted that pending investigation, the accused came forward to settle the amount and before the charge sheet was laid, the accused have settled for 34 depositors, to the tune of Rs.23,81,308/- and after the charge sheet was laid, they have settled for 49 depositors, to the tune of Rs.34,31,656/-.
5. To that effect, he has also produced a copy of the instructions given by the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Trichy. This was affirmed by Thiru V.Ramachandran, Sub Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Trichy, who was present before this Court today. It is further reported that in view of the compromise arrived between the parties, the trial Court has posted the case for judgment on 13.12.2019.
6. Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the case in C.C.No.4 of 2016 itself is posted for judgment on 13.12.2019, this criminal original petition stands closed, as no further order is required to be passed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) gk To 1.The Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai.
2/3
2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II at Trichy, Trichirappalli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
11.12.2019 JMN(31.01.2020) 3P : 4C 3/3