Madras High Court
Malikkinnisa vs State Represented By on 3 August, 2018
Author: P.N. Prakash
Bench: P.N. Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.08.2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.12005 of 2017 Malikkinnisa Petitioner vs. 1 State represented by Inspector of Police CCB, EDF-II, Team 4 Chennai (Cr. No.47 of 2014) 2 Nizamuddin @ M. Mohammed Marzock Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR against the petitioner/A2 in Cr. No.418 of 2014 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB, EDF-II, Team 4, Vepery, Chennai against the petitioner/A2, as illegal. For petitioner Mr. G. Murugendran For R1 Mr. C. Iyappa Raj Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 Mr. T. Ramachandran ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred seeking to quash the FIR against the petitioner/A2 in Cr. No.418 of 2014 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team 4, Vepery, Chennai.
2 On the complaint lodged by one Mohamed Marzock, the second respondent herein, the first respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.418 of 2014 on 10.10.2014 under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506 (1) IPC against Siddik (A1) and Mallikinnisa (A2/petitioner herein), for quashing which, Mallikinnisa (A2/petitioner herein) is before this Court.
3 Heard Mr. G. Murugendran, learned counsel for the accused, Mr.C.Iyappa Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent State and Mr. T. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant.
4 Mr. Murugendran, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, inasmuch as, the entire transaction is civil in nature and a criminal colour has been given to it. He further submitted that the accused have paid a substantial amount to the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.36 lakhs as per the directions of this Court and therefore, nothing survives.
5 Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant refuted the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused.
6 This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
7 On a reading of the FIR, it is seen that it is alleged by the de facto complainant that he is into hotel business in Saudi Arabia and India; he got acquainted with the accused through his brother Mohamed Jiavudin; the accused represented that they are the owners of the land in Plot No.2B measuring 26 cents in Seevaram Village and that they are willing to sell the property to the de facto complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.2.12 crores; the de facto complainant had paid amounts to the accused on various dates totally amounting to Rs.2.05 crores; whenever the de facto complainant requested the accused to execute the sale deed, they were giving some excuse or the other and were avoiding execution of sale deed; the de facto complainant saw in the TV news that the accused were arrested by the police in Cr. No.47 of 2014 on the complaint lodged by another person for agreeing to sell the same land; investigation revealed that the land did not belong to the accused and they had created fake documents like patta, etc., based on which, they had cheated various persons, including the de facto complainant; hence, the de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint and the FIR has been registered, as stated above.
8 Thus, on a reading of the FIR, it is seen that there are more than prima facie materials for a full-fledged investigation to proceed further and therefore, the same cannot be quashed at the threshold in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Others [AIR 1992 SC 604].
9 However, Mr. Murugendran, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused are ready and willing to amicably settle the matter with the de facto complainant and therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
10 In the opinion of this Court, the FIR has been registered in the year 2014 and till date, there has not been any progress in the investigation because of the various litigations which have been initiated in this regard. Hence, this is not a fit case to be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
11 Mr. Murugendran further submitted that since the de facto complainant has filed a civil suit for recovery of money, the present criminal prosecution is clearly an abuse of process of law.
12 This Court is unable to persuade itself to agree with the aforesaid submission, because, in a criminal prosecution, the accused can be punished only if the offence is proved. The process of criminal law cannot be used for recovery of money and therefore, the de facto complainant is justified in filing a suit for recovery of money. If, during the course of investigation, the accused repays all the monies to the de facto complainant and if the de facto complainant is willing for the quashment of FIR or charge sheet, it is always open to the parties to approach this Court in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466].
13 For now, it is seen that there are prima facie materials in the FIR for a full-fledged police investigation which cannot be stifled.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
03.08.2018 cad P.N. PRAKASH, J.
cad To 1 The Inspector of Police CCB, EDF-II, Team 4 Chennai 2 The Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Chennai 600 104 Crl.O.P. No.12005 of 2017 03.08.2018