Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2078 (MAD)

Annamalai v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Cuddalore

2022-07-14

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.No.104 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as illegal.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent police and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. 2. The prayer in this petition is to quash the FIR said to have been lodged on 15.06.2018 in Cr.No.104 of 2018, for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, on 24.05.2018, one Jayasudha, wife of Velmurugan has lodged a complaint before the Kullanchavadi police that the defacto complainant herein along with others came and pressurised her husband for the return of the debt and they also criminally intimidated them and hence, her husband was in deep depression for the last 10 days and subsequently, due to the mental agony, her husband consumed poison and died on 23.05.2018. 4. The present FIR is given by the defacto complainant alleging that he along with the husband of the complainant in the previous FIR, was doing cashew nut business on credit basis and he was due a sum of Rs.67,86,434/- by way of credit supply of cashew nuts and when he demanded, they have uttered filthy language and criminally intimidated him IMAGE 5. Now, the petitioners herein who are arrayed as accused in the FIR in Cr.No.104 of 2018 on the file of Muthandikuppam Police Station, submits that the second FIR is only a counter blast to clear the first FIR. 6. After hearing the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), I find that the supply of cashew nuts on credit basis by the defacto complainant in this case and demand made for the return of Rs.65 Lakhs, is the genesis of the alleged crime in both the cases and hence, I find that there is a matter for investigation and hence, the FIR cannot be termed as a malicious prosecution or a counter blast. However, it is to be treated as inter connected. Hence the respondent police shall interrogate both the cases and file a final report before the same Court indicating the genesis of the case in both final report. 7. With these observations, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, it is to be treated as inter connected. Hence the respondent police shall interrogate both the cases and file a final report before the same Court indicating the genesis of the case in both final report. 7. With these observations, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.