SHARMILA Vs. M. IRENE MANOHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is arrayed as third accused in the case in Crime No. 1522 of 2013 registered on the file of the second respondent police. The said case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by the first respondent herein. Contending that the registration of the case in Crime No. 1522 of 2013 as against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier, a similar complaint dated 03.10.2013 was given by the first respondent herein before the Commissioner of Police, Egmore and that was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, E -1, Mylapore Police Station for enquiry. After conducting an enquiry, the Inspector of Police, Mylapore by proceedings dated 16.10.2013 informed the first respondent herein that the dispute is civil in nature and that has to be resolved through a Civil Forum. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent, suppressing the earlier complaint and the enquiry conducted by the Inspector of Police, E -1, Mylapore Police Station, has sent a complaint to the Honourable Chief Minister's Grievance Cell by adding one sentence to the effect that the first accused personally came to her house at Choolai and collected the cash. Such an averment was not made in the earlier complaint dated 03.10.2013. The said complaint was forwarded to the second respondent on 16.12.2013 based on which the present case in Crime No. 1522 of 2013 was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is guilty of suppression of the earlier complaint dated 03.10.2013 and the enquiry conducted thereon by the Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a reading of the present complaint will make out a case of civil transaction and no criminal offence is made out. Even assuming that the allegations made in the complaint make out a criminal case, there is no material furnished by the first respondent to implicate the petitioner as an accused in the said case and on that ground also, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 1522 of 2013 are liable to be quashed.

(3.) ON the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel for the first respondent. I heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.