DEVI PADMANABHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the first accused, has filed the above criminal original petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2003 on the file of the Inspector of Police, E.O.W.(Headquarters), Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner would allege that on a private complaint filed by one P.Venu, Personnel Manager of Amaravathi Finance and Investments, 30, Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(II) IPC on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15 against the petitioner and her husband Padmanabhan, the said Court forwarded the same to the respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with an endorsement to register the case and investigate into; that on receipt of the same, the respondent has registered the FIR in his Cr.No.8/2003, dated 6.6.2003 and started investigating into, in which the petitioner and her husband moved this Court for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.18616 of 2003, which was dismissed by this Court on 25.6.2003.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that the private complaint for civil dispute per se is ill-motivated; that the highlight of the complaint is that the petitioner and her husband have borrowed a sum of Rs.1 crore on promise that they would create a charge on the property situate at Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Madras; that the complainant being a leading non-banking finance company, without verification of the title deeds of the property and without even looking into the same and the relevant documents relating to the transaction, would not have parted with such huge amounts; that the E.O.W. being an organisation specially created to investigate into matters relating to Non-Banking Finance Companies, who had accepted deposits from the general public under pretext of deceiving the general public, no action could be initiated against the petitioner since no depositor has come forward to lodge the complaint and in fact the complaint should have been referred only to the Central Crime Branch, Egmore, for their investigation and report; that the complainant did not file any complaint before any police station and that the Magistrate, without even verifying the same, has forwarded the private complaint to the respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On such grounds, the petitioners would pray for the relief extracted supra.