W.P.No.13793 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On: 25.07.2024 Pronounced On: 02.08.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

& W.P.Nos.14958, 14960, 15183 and 23000 of 2024

S.P.Velayutham. .... Petitioner/Accused

/versus/

1.State by

Station House Officer,

Inspector of Police, Section V,

Economic Offences Wing,

Mandir Marg.,

New Delhi – 110 001

Crime No.210 of 2020.

2. M/s.Emaar MGF Land Ltd,

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

Nikhil Srivastawa (9560396262),

C2, District Center, Saket,

New Delhi – 110 017. ... Respondent/Complainant

Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,

to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating

to the impugned FIR in Crime No.210 of 2020 pending investigation on the file

of 1

st

respondent Inspector of Police, EOW, New Delhi and quash the same as

without jurisdiction, vitiated by Legal Malafides and abuse of process of law or

in alternative direct the 1

st

respondent to transfer the Investigation being

conducted by the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi to the Economic

1/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

Offences Wing, Tambaram Commissionerate or any other investigating agency

of the Chennai Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel

for Mr.S.Xavier Felix

For R1 : No appearance

For R2 : Mr.T.Gowthaman, Senior Counsel,

for M/s.KNS Law Chambers.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime

No.210 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of 1

st

respondent/Inspector of

Police, EOW, New Delhi and quash the same as without jurisdiction, vitiated

by Legal Malafides and abuse of process of law or in alternative, direct the 1

st

respondent to transfer the Investigation being conducted by the Economic

Offences Wing, New Delhi to the Economic Offences Wing, Tambaram

Commissionerate or any other Investigating Agency of the Chennai Police.

2. The above said Writ Petition to quash the F.I.R in Crime

No.210/2020 on the file of Inspector of Police, Section V, Economic Offences

Wing been registered as per the direction of the Learned Chief Metropolitan

2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in exercise of its power under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

3. The substantial grounds raised in this quash petition are:-

i) Suppressing the fact that Civil Suit in C.S.No.169/2018 pending

on the file of the Original Side of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras regarding

the same transaction in respect of immovable properties at Chennai, the

complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi given by abusing

the process of law.

ii) The earlier criminal complaints to the police regarding the same

transaction been enquired and action dropped as civil dispute. Despite that, the

Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi

without following the dictum laid in Priyanka Srivatsava case, [2015(6)SCC

287] had entertained the complaint petition filed 14 years after the occurrence

alleging cheating, misrepresentation, breach of trust and conspiracy.

iii) The entire transaction between the parties took place in

Chennai. The property which is the subject matter of the complaint is within

the jurisdiction of Chennai. While so, making a vague averment that the

3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

negotiation took place in Delhi and payments were made at Delhi, the

complainant had chosen forum at Delhi to agitate his criminal complaint after

filing the suit in Madras High Court for the same transaction stating the cause

of the action for the suit for recovery of money is within the territorial

jurisdiction of Madras High Court. Had the complainant fairly disclosed in his

complaint that the complainant company had initiated Civil Suit for recovery of

money against this petitioner, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

would not have entertained the complaint and issued direction to register the

complaint.

4. The Registry of this Court, had doubt whether Writ Petition to

quash a criminal complaint under investigation by Delhi Police based on the

judicial order passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi could be

entertained. Therefore, the matter was listed under caption “For

Maintainability” before the Learned Judge for appropriate order.

5. After considering the facts of the case and the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in i) Oil and Natural Gas Commission -vs- Utpal

Kumar Basu and others reported in 1994(4) SCC 711 and ii) Navinchandra

N.Majithia -vs- State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2000 (7) SCC

4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

640 this Court held that, the Writ Petition is maintainable and directed the

Registry to list the case for hearing after numbering it. Accordingly, when the

matter came up for admission on 24/05/2024, this Court being prima faciely

satisfied that the complaint at Delhi is without jurisdiction granted interim stay

for two weeks and ordered notice for hearing the 2

nd

respondents.

6. After notice, the defacto complainant had entered appearance

through his Counsel. Also a preliminary counter filed on behalf of the defacto

complainant/2

nd

respondent. That apart, on behalf of the 2

nd

respondent oral

submissions made by Mr.T.Gowthaman, Senior Counsel on why this writ

petition has to be dismissed.

7. In the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the 2

nd

respondent it

is stated that, to quash a criminal complaint, Writ Petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution is not maintainable in view of the following judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in :-

1). Gaythri Prasad Prajapati -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh

judgment dated 21/02/2022.

2) State of H.P -vs- Pirithi Chand and another reported in

1996(2) SCC 37.

5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

3) State of Haryana & others –vs- Bajanlal and others reported

in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

8. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the defacto

complainant, the case was registered by Delhi Economic Offence Wings on the

direction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Hence, any petition to

quash the complaint ought to have been filed only before the Court at Delhi.

Further, to quash a criminal complaint pending investigation, petition ought to

have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and not a Writ Petition under Article

226 of Constitution of India which can be invoked only in case of violation of

Fundamental Right. In order to circumvent the legal procedure, the petitioner

has filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India before this

Court which has no supervisory jurisdiction over the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Delhi who has ordered investigation by exercising its power under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

9. Similarly, the main prayer to quash the complaint in Crime

No.210 of 2020 and the alternate prayer to transfer the investigation from

Economic Offence Wing, Delhi to Economic Offence Wing, Tambaram, Tamil

Nadu is not clear and ambiguous. It is a frivolous petition which deserve to be

6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

dismissed at the threshold following the dictum laid in Baikunth Prasad

Verma -vs- Lachmi Paper House & Others reported in 1991(2) PLJR 478

dated 20/11/1989.

10. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the above preliminary

counter to justify how the Writ Petition is maintainable to quash a criminal case

under investigation by Delhi Police before this Court at Chennai. According to

the petitioner, the issue regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition already

been considered and detailed order was passed on 09/05/2024 holding the Writ

Petition is maintainable after considering the dictum laid in ONGC -vs- Utpal

Kumar Base case (cited supra) and Navinchandra N.Majithia case (cited supra).

Therefore, as far the facts of this case, the question of maintainability is no

more res integra.

Points for consideration:-

1) Whether the petitioner had ventured in Forum Shopping by

filing Writ Petition before this Court to quash the criminal case under

investigation by Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi registered as per the

direction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in exercise of its power

under 156(3) of Cr.P.C.?

7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

2) If no, whether the facts of the case warrants interference of this

Court in the on going investigation and quash it as frivolous and vexatious

complaint and bereft of prima facie material to infer commission of cognizable

crime?

3) Whether pendency of a civil suit for recovery of money will be a

legal impediment for the police to register and investigate this case?

11. The substance of the complaint dated 27/11/2019 filed under

Section 200 Cr.P.C before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi is that, the

complainant Company having registered Office at New Delhi is a leading

construction Company. During the month of November 2006, the petitioner

(S.P.Velayutham – A1) approached the complainant Company at Delhi and

represented that, he can arrange for purchase of 8.24 acres of land in Alandur

Village near Chennai and induced to enter into an agreement to purchase the

said land with one K.S.Deenadayalu and Amar S/o.Velayutham, both

introduced by the petitioner as owner of the said land and the petitioner as their

Power of Attorney holder entered into sale agreement dated 23/08/2006 with

those owners. Believing the representation of the petitioner and the above two

persons, the complainant Company entered into deed of assignment on

15/12/2006 in respect of 8.24 acres of land in Alandur for a sale consideration

8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

of Rs.1,64,52,70,000/-.

12. Pursuant to the agreement, Rs.5 crores was paid on 15/12/2006

by way of two cheques. As per the terms of the agreement, on the date of

registration of the sale deed, the Complainant has to pay Rs.50 lakhs and the

balance Rs.1,14,52,70,000/- to be paid after completion of all the undertaking

and promises specifically mentioned in Clause 2 of the deed of assignment

dated 15/12/2006.

13. On 15/12/2006, for providing service to clear the

encumbrance, the petitioner and his son Amar received Rs.1,01,00,000/-. Later,

to pay the owners of the land (petitioner herein) received Rs.10 crores on

23/01/2007. This money were not paid to the owners but retained by the

petitioner himself. Again during the month of February 2007 demanded Rs.35

crores to pay the encroachers and to pay the Indian Bank to get the possession

from the encroachers. A escrow agreement was entered between the parties

appointing one Shri Kaushik N.Sharma as escrow Agent and demand draft for

Rs.35 crores paid into the escrow account. The petitioner, later took away the

entire original title deeds from the Escrow Agent under the pretext of settling

the dues with Indian Bank.

9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

14. In the month of March/April 2007, the petitioner demanded

money to settle the balance payable to Indian Bank and induced the

complainant to deliver Rs.10 crores on 27/04/2007. Later, it came to the

knowledge of the complainant that nothing was paid to Indian Bank and there

was no lien of the property with the Indian Bank. Thus, by fraudulent

representation and with intention of cheating, the petitioner and others had

induced the complainant Company to pay Rs.51 crores.

15. Subsequently, representing that the actual extent of land in

Alandur as per revenue records is about 20 acres and showing certain forged

document, made the complainant to believe that he will arrange to transfer the

entire 20 acres of land to the complainant Company and for which initially the

property has to be transferred from the owners to his son Amar. So that the

larger extent of land can be transferred to the complainant through his son

Amar. Believing the words of the petitioner, the Company entered into an

Addendum to the deed of Assignment and was induced to pay on 03/07/2007

an additional sum of Rs.12,61,77,638/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Sixty One

Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Eight) towards

conveyance cost and Rs.1,57,72,205/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Seven Lakhs

10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

Seventy Two Thousand Two Hundred and Five) towards stamp duty expenses.

After receiving this money the next day, the petitioner as Power of Attorney

holder of the land owners, transferred the Alandur property to his Son Amar.

16. During the course of negotiating the additional land in

Alandur, the petitioner also came up with a new proposal to sell the land owned

by M/s.Raptakos Brett Company at Velacherry, Chennai and claiming as the

agreement holder for the said land the petitioner induced the complainant to

join him in the joint venture to promote the land and made him to part away

Rs.100 crores on 31/08/2007 as interest free adjustable deposit to get 16.52

acres out of 22.24 acres registered in the name of the complainant within 30

days from the payment. Later, the complainant came to know that the petitioner

has forged the signature of the Managing Director, M/s.Raptakos Brett

Company and deceived the complainant to part away Rs.100 crores.

17. The Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi after

considering the allegations made in the complaint and on perusing the Action

Taken Report filed by the Investigating Officer who had submitted that the

dispute is civil in nature, directed to register the complaint of cheating

Rs.1,84,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lakhs only) pursuant to

11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

conspiracy hatched by the petitioner, his son Amar, K.S.Deenadayalu Reddy,

Venkatakrishnan and Ramanathan. The Learned Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, after discussing the averments found in the complaint and relying

upon the dictum laid in Lalitha Kumar’s case had concluded that,

“the fact of the matter is that the complaint exfacie

discloses commission of several cognizable offences as a

bare reading of it would reveal that allegation of forgery,

diversion of funds and inducement through agreements

one after another which led to complainant for parting

with his money exist. The allegation requires police

investigation as evidence is required to be collected for

ascertainment of truth. Accordingly, this court is of

considered view that on the basis of complaint FIR is

required to be registered against the accused persons.”

18. After registration of the complaint in Crime No.210/2020, the

Investigating Officer had issued summon under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., to the

petitioner and the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and

given his statement. Again, a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., dated

24/02/2023 issued for appearance before the Investigating Officer on

10/03/2021. The petitioner and his son who apprehends arrest by the first

respondent police in connection with this case has obtained anticipatory bail

12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

from this Court in Crl.O.P.No.10321/2024 dated 30/04/2024 on condition that

they should appear before the first respondent police every Saturday at 10.30

a.m until 05/07/2024. Meanwhile, this Writ Petition is filed to quash the

complaint.

19. On behalf of the petitioner regarding maintainability, pointing

that except claiming that the negotiation took place in Delhi and some of the

payments were made in Delhi, all transaction necessary for investigation had

taken place only in Chennai. In paragraph No.42 of the complaint, the Court

been mislead by the statement of the complaint that the Court has jurisdiction to

try the present case as the offences have been committed by the accused

persons within the jurisdiction of Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg

Police Station. Whereas, in the suit C.S.No.169/2018 filed for recovery of

Rs.1,84,07,27,698/ with interest, it is stated that part cause of action arose at

T.Nagar, Chennai where the defendants office situated, meetings and

negotiations took place.

20. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that,

when the complainant in the suit had admitted that part cause of action arose at

Chennai, then as per the dictum laid in Navinchandra N.Majithia case, the writ

13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution before the High Court of

Madras is maintainable. Further, after the Court has passed a judicial order

regarding maintainability, there is no necessary to reopen the issue.

21. Contrarily, the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent

submit that even if the Court has initially satisfied on prima facie material that

Writ Petition is maintainable and issued rule nisi, it can be dismissed

subsequently, on the ground of alternate remedy. To buttress this preposition,

he rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (12)

SCC 675 in re: State of Uttar Pradesh and another -vs- Uttar Pradesh Rajya

Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and others.

22. To buttress his submission that quash of F.I.R on ground of

lack of territorial jurisdiction of police to investigate the offence is improper, he

relied on Satvinder Kaur -vs- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another

reported in 1999 (8) SCC 728.

23. In ONGC -vs- Utpal Kumar Basu (cited supra) case, the

Supreme Court while considering cause of action and territorial jurisdiction in a

matter arising from a tender setting up of Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit,

14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

considering Section 21 of C.P.C, Articles 136 and 226(2) of the Constitution,

the Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held that, tender called from

Delhi for work to be carried out at Gujarat, offer by the Writ Petition from

Calcutta will not confer jurisdiction to Calcutta High Court to entertain writ

petition challenging the non consideration of his offer on the premise that part

cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta.

24. In Navinchandra N.Majithia case (cited supra), the writ

petition filed in Bombay High Court to quash the criminal complaint registered

at Shillong was entertained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasising that

Article 226(2) of the Constitution, enables a person to invoke the writ

jurisdiction of the Court where part cause of action arise, even though the seat

of authority or residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ

is sought to be issued is not within the said territory.

25. Therefore, this Court on considering the facts disclosed by the

respective parties, conclude that the dispute between the parties is in respect of

land situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The allegation of

fraud, breach of trust and cheating has to be necessarily probed where the land

situated and revenue records maintained. Therefore, hold that the Writ Petition

15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

is maintainable in this Court, which has territorial jurisdiction over the land

involved in the transaction.

26. By filing the Writ Petition in Madras High Court, it cannot be

inferred that the petitioner had ventured in Forum Shopping. When a litigant

has option to choose a forum, he had chosen forum of his convenience.

Accordingly, the first point for consideration is answered in negative.

27. Going on to the merits of the case, in view of this Court, the

impugned complaint cannot be quashed for want of jurisdiction or for the

reason that the complainant had initiated suit for recovery of money against the

accused/petitioner.

28. In Satvinder Kaur -vs- State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) and

another reported in 1999(8) SCC 728, on considering the relevant provisions

of law under Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Sections 177 to

188) relates to “jurisdiction of the criminal courts in enquires and trials” had

observed as below:-

14. Further, the legal position is well settled that if

an offence is disclosed the court will not normally

interfere with an investigation into the case and will

16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

permit investigation into the offence alleged to be

completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the

commission of an offence, the court does not normally stop

the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the

lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable

offences. It is also settled by a long course of decisions of

this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power

under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR or a complaint,

the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the

basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the

documents accompanying the same per se; it has no

jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the

allegations.

29. In the case in hand, the complainant Company had disclosed

the closure of his earlier complaints to the Delhi Police and how transaction in

this case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Delhi. In Satvinder Kaur case (cited supra) the Hon’ble Supreme

Court had clarified the issue in the following words:-

“8. In our view, the submission made by the learned

counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. The

limited question is whether the High Court was justified in

quashing the FIR on the ground that Delhi Police Station

did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the

offence. From the discussion made by the learned Judge, it

17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

appears that learned Judge has considered the provisions

applicable for criminal trial. The High Court arrived at

the conclusion by appreciating the allegations made by the

parties that the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar, New

Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain

and investigate the FIR lodged by the appellant because

the alleged dowry items were entrusted to the respondent

at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC arose at

Patiala. In our view, the findings given by the High Court

are, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous because:

(1) The SHO has statutory authority under Section

156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any

cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged.

(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no

question of interference under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code on the ground that the investigating

officer has no territorial jurisdiction.

(3) After investigation is over, if the investigating

officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action

for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial

jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report

accordingly under Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure

Code and to forward the case to the Magistrate

empowered to take cognizance of the offence.”

30. In the instant case, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Delhi had applied its mind and held that it is a case for investigation and had

18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

directed the first respondent to register the case and investigate. Pursuant to the

direction, the first respondent had commenced investigation. At the stage of

investigation, on the ground that the Investigating Officer has no territorial

jurisdiction, Court need not interfere when particularly the direction been

issued by a Judicial Officer, who is not under the supervisory jurisdiction of

this Court. Further, the Station House Officer has a statutory duty to register

the complaint and investigate since it is a judicial order passed by the Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, if

the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that there is no territorial

jurisdiction for the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi to try the offence, the

Investigating Officer can forward his report to the Magistrate, who is

empowered to take cognizance under Section 170 Cr.P.C to take further action.

31. This Court finds disclosure of several incidents of deceit and

inducement in the complaint. The Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, had

found that these facts warrants investigation. Therefore, even assuming the

Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had not obtained affidavit from the

complainant as per the direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka

Srivatsava case, interference of this Court in the on going investigation is not

warranted. It is not a case of pure civil in nature given a cloak of criminal

19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

offence. Even in the plaint filed for recovery of money, the complainant had

stated that the 2

nd

respondent (the petitioner herein) had hatched a devious ploy

at the very initial stage to cheat and defraud and extort huge sums of money

under the guise of sale of property which the 2

nd

respondent (petitioner herein)

had no right or title over. Hence, this Court holds that the complaint on the

face of it is not a frivolous or vexatious complaint. It discloses prima facie

material to investigate commission of cognizable crime.

The last issue for consideration, is whether pendency of a civil

suit for recovery of money will be a legal impediment for the police to

register and investigate this case?

32. The pendency of civil suit or complaint disclosing a civil

transaction is not a bar for initiating criminal prosecution, if essential

ingredients for commission of cognizable offence is made out in the complaint.

Many times, a civil dispute may later turn into a criminal case when the parties

take law into their hands or under the garb of civil transaction one may commit

offence of forgery, fraud, criminal breach of trust or cheating. It is for the

Court to cautiously scrutinise the facts of each case and find out whether a

complaint discloses a criminal offence or not. A complaint disclosing civil

20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

transactions may also have a criminal texture. Whether essential ingredients of

criminal offence are present or not has to be Judged by the High Court.

33. In Salib -vs- State of U.P and others reported in

MANU/SC/0851/2023, at paragraph 26, it is held that,

“26. At this stage, we would like to observe

something important. Whenever an Accused comes before

the Court invoking either the inherent powers Under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or

extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the

Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings

quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings

are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such

circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR

with care and a little more closely. We say so because

once the complainant decides to proceed against the

Accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal

vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the

FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary

pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the

averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they

disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged

offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court

to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint

21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the

necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are

disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the

Court owes a duty to look into many other attending

circumstances emerging from the record of the case over

and above the averments and, if need be, with due care

and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The

Court while exercising its jurisdiction Under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 226 of the

Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a

case but is empowered to take into account the overall

circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the

case as well as the materials collected in the course of

investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple

FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in

the background of such circumstances the registration of

multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the

issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal

grudge as alleged.”

34. In the instant case, no doubt the complainant Company had

approached the local police and the complaint came to be closed as civil

dispute. Following the dictum laid in Latitha Kumari -vs- State of Uttar

Pradesh case, the complainant had approached the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate and had disclosed the facts about the earlier complaints and its

closure. Therefore, this Court finds no suppression of fact or Forum Shopping

22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

as alleged by the petitioner. On various occasion, money from the complainant

been received by the petitioner promising one or other offer and all those offers

were alleged to be an inducement to extract money and cheat. The facts

narrated in the complaint are not denied as false. They are not new found facts

but already form part of the plaint instituted in the year 2018.

35. The criminal complaint can only lead to punishment of the

perpetrator of the crime if the guilt is proved. The person who lost the money

due to the dubious design of fraud, has to necessarily go for recovery of money

and for which, money suit is the only remedy. For recovery of money, suit has

to be initiated within the limitation period prescribed under law. The

complainant in this case had resorted to civil remedy for recovery of money and

initiated the complaint to punish the offenders for the commission of

cognizable offences.

36. From the materials placed, this Court is of the view that it is a

case for investigation since the complaint discloses each and every time when

and where the complainant has paid money on the promise or representation of

the petitioner to do part of his contract but later found they all were false

promise or fraudulent representation. Particularly, the receipt of about Rs.13

23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

crores offering additional extent of land at Alandur by showing fake revenue

records and the offer of Velecherry land for joint venture proposal without any

right to receive Rs.100 crores are matters which requires investigation.

37. On considering the facts of the case, the petition to quash or

the alternate relief to order transfer of investigation deserve to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition No.13793 of 2024 stands dismissed. This

dismissal of the quash petition shall not prejudice the petitioner, to challenge

the final report, on completion of investigation. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

02.08.2024

Index :Yes.

Internet :Yes.

bsm

To:-

1. The Station House Officer, Inspector of Police, Section V,

Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg.,

New Delhi – 110 001.

24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

bsm

Pre-delivery order made in

W.P.No.13793 of 2024

02.08.2024

25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis