K. SUNDARAM Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents herein to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No. 69/2014 on the file of the 4th respondent herein, to some other investigating agency, preferably, the 3rd respondent and to take action against the acccused and to investigate the matter and further to file a final report.

(2.) The petitioner contends that he borrowed money on different occasions, from one Immanuel (A1), totalling to a sum of Rs.11 lakhs, repayable with 2% interest. The said Immanuel was introduced to the petitioner by one Balakrishnan (A5), who was staying in the petitioner's residence. In respect of the loan amount, one Stephen (A2), who is the son- in-law of said Emanuel and Mahal Sahul Abbas (A3) made the petitioner to execute a mortgage deed in respect of his house property as a collateral security. Further, the petitioner's signatures were obtained on three blank pronotes towards security for the said loan. Besides, they also got three pronotes executed by the petitioner's son worth Rs.3 lakhs each in their favour.

(3.) Though 2% interest was originally agreed to be charged, as the petitioner was unable to pay the interest amount regularly, the accused started demanding 5% interest on the loan amount. On 04.04.2012, the second accused, namely, Stephen, got a settlement deed for Rs.15 lakhs executed by the petitioner, in respect of the petitioner's property, by coercion, for the loan amount. Even thereafter, the accused persons demanded Rs.26 lakhs by calculating interest on the loan amount at 5%. Then, the petitioner executed a sale deed dated 19.12.2012, in respect of his property, in favour of the said Immanuel and his wife Lily Pushpam, the fourth accused. After entering into the settlement deed, the accused persons started collecting rents from various tenants in the said property belonging to the petitioner and did not produce any account of amounts collected from his tenants. While so, on 13.02.2014, the accused persons, along with some rowdy elements, came to the petitioner's house and again demanded Rs. 26 lakhs from the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 13.02.2014 narrating the entire facts to the 4th respondent. As no action was taken, he sent another complaint on 17.02.2014 to the respondents. Even thereafter, there was no response, which made the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar under Section 156(iii) Cr.P.C. to register the complaint given by him to the 3rd and 4th respondents. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, by order dated 10.03.2014 in Crl.M.P. No. 1268 of 2014, directed the 4th respondent to register the petitioner's complaint. Based on the said direction, the 4th respondent registered a case in Crime No. 69 of 2014 on 11.04.2014 for offences undeer Sections 147, 294(b), 427, 506(i) I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that even after the registration of FIR, the 4th respondent has not taken proper steps to investigate the matter and to file the final report. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.