V.RAJARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.1666 of 2014 pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

(2.) The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint on 24/12/2013 to the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai. Since no action was taken, the 2nd respondent filed a direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2014. This Court, by order, dtd. 11/2/2014 directed the 1st respondent Police to register a case. Thereafter, an FIR in Crime No.1666 of 2014 was registered against the petitioners for offence under Ss. 294(b), 420 and 506(i) of IPC.

(3.) The complaint of the 2nd respondent is that the 2nd respondent owned a house property measuring about 455 sq.ft situated at No.373/23, Ganga Kanchi Plot, Thirumangalam Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai. This flat was originally purchased by her husband P.Malaiappan and subsequently, the same was settled in her favour on 5/4/2004. The 2nd respondent's husband for family expenses, mortgaged the property with M/s.East West Benefit Fund for a sum of Rs.1,25,000.00 in the year 2007. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent and her husband paid back Rs.1,00,000.00 towards the mortgage to M/s.East West Benefit Fund in the year 2007. They were facing some difficulty in making balance payment of Rs.25,000.00 and the balance amount along with the interest had spiralled and increased to a sum of Rs.65,000.00 and it was unable to be mobilized. Hence, the 2nd respondent approached the 1st petitioner, a financier and borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 to settle the dues with the mortgage in M/s.East West Benefit Fund during the March 2012 and signed in the blank Non Judicial Stamp paper and handed over the same to the 1st petitioner. The original documents is with the 1st petitioner along with signed blank Non Judicial Stamp papers. The 1st petitioner had extended the loan of Rs.3,50,000.00 and another loan of Rs.2,50,000.00 with 4% interest. At that time also, four signed blank Non Judicial Stamp papers and also blank cheques were obtained from the 2nd respondent. Without knowledge of the 2nd respondent, her husband Malaiappan for the business purpose approached the 1st petitioner, received a principle of Rs.75,000.00 with interest of Rs.35,000.00, totally Rs.1,10,000.00. Since he was unable to repay the loan, the 2nd respondent decided to sell the property valued around Rs.26,00,000.00. Sofar the 2nd respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,30,000.00 based on the property. Since the 2nd respondent's elder daughter marriage was fixed in the month of June 2013, the 2nd respondent and her husband were unable to arrange funds for the marriage. Having no other option, the 2nd respondent approached the 1st petitioner for additional loan. The 1st petitioner expressed his inability and introduced the 2nd petitioner as big financier and he would arrange loan for the marriage, on condition that the 2nd respondent shall execute power of attorney in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Trusting the words of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent executed a power of attorney on 18/6/2013 and she was busy with her daughter's marriage to be held on 24/6/2013. To her shock and surprise the 2nd respondent came to know that without her knowledge, the 2nd petitioner by using the power of attorney, executed a sale deed in favour of one G.Chandrasekaran and the property sale consideration has been shown as Rs.13,00,000.00 and thereby, caused huge loss and cheated the 2nd respondent by fabricating and impersonating her. When the 2nd respondent questioned the same, the petitioners used abusive and unparliamentary words and threatened her with dire consequences.