Deepa v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 03.12.2024

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr. Justice K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13081 of 2024

1. Deepa

2. Annalakshmi

3. Divaya ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, Madurai City. Crime No.199 of 2023.

2. Tamilselvi ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 and Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Crime No. 199 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

ORDER

This Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.199 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police. 1/4

2. The crux of the case is that the defacto complainant is residing with her husband. She knew the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and they are resided in same locality and they also lending usury. The defacto complainant also borrowed money for her personal needs. The defacto complainant's house was pledged in the Society by her and the same was not closed. This was informed to A1 by the defacto complainant. On 17.10.2022, the defacto complainant trusted the words and asked A1 to come to Society to settle the loan. Believing her words, on 20.10.2022, the defacto complainant went along with A1 to Society and A1 deposited the outstanding loan amount Rs.5,00,000/- to the Society, thereafter, the officer stated the original deed will hand over after one month.

Then, she alleged, after three days, A1 called the defacto complainant and insisted to execute the security deed in register office due to her husband's pressure for the assurance of above amount. Based on that on 07.11.2022, the defacto complainant went to Othakadai Sub Register office, wherein, A2 and A3 were present. The defacto complainant informed the same to family, when after she return back to home. When they checked the E.C., it shown afore house was purchased by A1 from the defacto complainant for the worth of Rs.30,00,000/-.

house, wherein, A1 stated as the defacto complainant failed to return the interest, hence, she done it. She alleged that as per deed, no amount was transacted to her. Hence, it was questioned by her for that she not gave any reply properly and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case was registered.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. On perusal of the records, this Court satisfy with the ingredients of the offence and the same is required to be investigated by the police officer. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to file a petition, after filing final report, if so advised. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 03.12.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet: yes / No NCC : Yes/No LS 3/4

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J., LS To

1. The Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, Madurai City.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21111 of 2024 03.12.2024 4/4