Dr.Sreedevi v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16.03.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1219 of 2011, 13194 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2011, 2 and 3 of 2012 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.431 of 2017 Dr.Sreedevi : Petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P. No.1219/2011 S.Vasudevamoorthy : Petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.No.13194/2012 Vs.
1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai.
(Crime No.46/2009) : Respondent / Complainant
2. L.G.Dhuvaraganath Managing Partner, Vedha Agencies, 294/1, Thalamuthu Pillai Lane, Naicker New Street, Madurai. : Respondent / De-facto Complainants in both cases Prayer: These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the final report in connection with C.C.No.232 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocate (Criminal side) For 2nd Respondent : Mr.Veera Kathiravan learned Senior counsel for Mr.C.Jegannathan COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed to call for the final report in connection with C.C.No.232 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioners.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm namely Veda Agencies, Madurai and it is an agency having been appointed as clearing and forwarding of Medical products. 3.It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused persons approached the de-facto complainant and made a false representation that they are running a Pharmaceutical firm in the name of Vivek Pharma and they proposed to enter into an agreement to carry out 'clearing and forwarding Agency. The said proposal was accepted and in pursuance of the said terms and conditions, an undertaking deed came to be executed by the 2nd accused in favour of the de-facto complainant's firm at the instance of the 4th accused. On that basis, during the month of June, July and September 2006, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was alleged to have been paid to the 1st accused by the de-facto complainant and on enquiry, the de-facto complainant came to know that they have already cheated several persons.
4.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is no clinching materials available against the petitioners to prove the guilty and that the main ingredients for the offence punishable under section 406, 420, 467, 468 r/w 120(B) of IPC are not found a place in the final report and that the defacto complainant's firm was appointed only as commission and forwarding agent and for free and uninterrupted supply of medicine to the commission and forwarding agent, some security deposit was obtained and subsequently, they did not receive the commission and interest for the selling of medicine as well as the security deposit and hence, the ingredient for the offence under section 420 of IPC is not attracted and that since, there is no specific entrustment in any manner by the de-facto complainant with the petitioners, the offence under section 406 IPC and other offences are not attracted against the petitioners.
Hence, he prayed that the final report filed in C.C.No.232 of 2010 has to be quashed. 5.Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the all accused persons in order receive the money from the 2nd respondent, have conspired together and committed the offences and that at the time of agreement, they have cleverly introduced and appointed (A3) Thilagam, so as to sign in the document and that on enquiry, the 2nd respondent came to know that they have already cheated several persons and the guilt of the accused would be established only after the full fledged trial and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the quash petitions.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that since, prima facie materials are available against the accused persons, FIR has been
rightly registered and charge sheet was also filed in C.C.No.232 of 2010, which is perfectly valid in law. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petitions.
7.Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
8.It is seen from the records that the accused persons approached the 2nd respondent and made a false representation that they are runing a Pharmaceutical Firm in the name of M/v.Vivek Pharma and they have entered into an agreement to carry out clearing and forwarding Agency and on the basis of the assurance given by the accused, the 2nd respondent had deposited Rs.20,00,000/- on various dates. At the time of entering into an agreement, A1 and A2 have introduced A3 Thilagam and she acted on behalf of Vivek Pharma and she has also signed as a Managing partner of Vivek Pharma.
9.On reading of the documents produced on the side of the prosecution, prima facie materials are available to presume that the petitioners along with the other accused have committed the offences.
10.In view of the above circumstances, this court is of the considered view that FIR has been rightly registered by the 1st respondent and the charge sheet was also filed in C.C.No.232 of 2010 before the court concerned in accordance law. Therefore, this court finds that no valid ground is available to quash the C.C.No.232 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.
11.In the result, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To,
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+2 cc to M/s.Veera Associates, Advocate, SR.Nos.15271 & 15272 +1 cc to Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate, SR.No. 15686 Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1219 of 2011, 13194 of 2012 er 16.03.2017 MKV-SV-MMS/10.4.2017/3P-7C