VIJAYA GURUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.553 of 2007 pending on the file of first respondent, and quash the same.

(2.) THE averments found in the petition which are as follows:- THE petitioners had not entered in to any money transaction with the defacto complainant/second respondent directly at any point of time; It transpires that the husband of the first petitioner Late.Gurusamy was having some money transaction with the defacto complainant/second respondent; THE said Gurusamy had committed suicide at Thiruchendur on 21.07.2003 since he was cheated by some debtors; THEre is no specific allegations made against these petitioners in the complaint; THE defacto complainant's father Paulraj has filed a suit against the petitioners and 11 others in O.S.No.256 of 2003 for appointment of an administrator to take possession of properties belonging to the petitioner's family numbering 15 and interim order has also been passed by the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur not to alienate the properties, excepting 6th suit item, which was a house constructed by the first petitioner in the year 1989 itself. THE second respondent/defacto complainant's wife Mrs.Uma Kaleeswari has also filed another suit in O.S.No.85 of 2006 on the file of the same Court against these petitioners; THE first petitioner is a house wife who did not know about the business run by her husband and the second petitioner was a minor studying in Madras at the time of his father's death on 21.07.2003; Due to worries, illness and mental tension, the first petitioner shifted her residence from Rajapalayam to Madurai in September,2003, after handing over about 26 properties, which stood in the name of the petitioners husband Late.Gurusamy to; a committee formed by the creditors of Late. Gurusamy through a General Power Deed dated 20.08.2003 to dispose of all the properties and distribute the respective shares amicably among all the creditors. Presently, the petitioners are facing about 30 civil suits in Sub Court Srivilliputhur. Though the transaction took place on 18.01.2003, the complaint has been filed only after a period of 4-1/2 years. Hence, on the ground of limitation and laches, the complaint is liable to be quashed. THE transaction between the defacto complainant and Late. Gurusamy was purely civil in nature. Hence, the Criminal Court is not the appropriate forum for deciding the said issue.

(3.) CONVERSELY, the learned counsel for the second respondent Mr.T.Muruganantham would contend that the allegations found in the complaint are more specific and has prima facie proof to show the criminal intention on the part of the petitioners and right from the beginning they had been acting in such a way to hoodwink the petitioners and their continuous behaviour after the death of Gurusamy Chettiar would clearly show the criminal intention on their part of cheating.