Madras High Court
Shakthi Chidambaram @ C.Dhinakaran vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police on 16 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 528
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N. Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.07.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.07.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH
Criminal Original Petition No.11007 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No.6704 of 2018
1.Shakthi Chidambaram @ C.Dhinakaran
2.V.Sathyamoorthi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State rep by Inspector of Police
M-6, Manali Police Station
Manali, Chennai.
2.Piyarailal Kunthucha ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records and quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.160 of 2018 on the file of the respondent-1 police registered against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh
For R1 : Mrs.Kritika Kamal, P.
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to call for the entire records and quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.160 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police registered against the petitioners.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.160 of 2018 on 30.03.2018 under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC against the petitioners/accused herein, challenging which, this quash application has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.Infant Dinesh, learned counsel for the accused, Mrs.Kritika Kamal, P., learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the first respondent-State and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for the de facto complainant.
4. Mr.Infant Dinesh contended that the complaint does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence and a purely civil transaction has been given a criminal colour.
5. Per contra, Mrs.Kritika Kamal and Mr.Malarvannan refuted the contentions and submitted that Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] has cheated the de facto complainant by selling the rights of the film by name "Jaikira Kudhirai" (Winning mare) to the second respondent in violation of his undertaking.
6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it may be necessary to discuss the FIR averments.
7. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he is a financier by business; Shakthi Chidambaram [A1], a Film Director approached him in the year 2014 to invest in his film "Jaikira Kudhirai"; he invested Rs.40,50,000/- in the film; Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] did not complete the film, but, wanted to complete the film with the finance provided by Sathyamoorthi [A2], to which, the de facto complainant agreed on condition that Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] will pay Rs.40,50,000/- before dubbing; Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] did not adhere to the undertaking and when the de facto complainant questioned him, Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] is said to have threatened him. Hence, the FIR.
8. Admittedly, the de facto complainant and Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] entered into a production agreement dated 08.10.2014, under which, the de facto complainant was required to invest money in the production of the film "Jaikira Kudhirai" that was to be directed by Shakthi Chidambaram [A1]. The terms and conditions have been set out in the agreement dated 08.10.2014. Thereafter, the de facto complainant agreed to withdraw from financing the film and permitted Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] to continue with the shooting of the film with the finance provided by Sathyamoorthi [A2], but, on condition that Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] would return Rs.40,50,000/- before the dubbing of the film. Thus, from the above it is clear that the entire transaction is borne out by agreements and records. It is not the case of the de facto complainant that after having received the money, Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] abandoned the project and pocketed the money. The de facto complainant has admitted that Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] had commenced the shooting of the film, but midway, for want of more finance, which the de facto complainant was not willing to pump in, Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] had to look out for another producer. At that time, Sathyamoorthi [A2] came into the picture. Thus, there is no deception at the inception at all in the transaction in question. Even if for some reasons, the movie had failed, Shakthi Chidambaram [A1] cannot escape from civil liability. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the registration of the FIR is undoubtedly an abuse of process of law.
In the result, this petition is allowed and the prosecution in Cr.No.160 of 2018 is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.07.2018 gms To
1.The Inspector of Police M-6, Manali Police Station Manali, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
gms Pre-delivery order in Crl.O.P.No.11007 of 2018 16.07.2018