Chennai: Quashing criminal proceedings against a member of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi pending before a city court, the Madras High Court has directed a developers
company, which lodged a complaint against him, to pay costs of Rs 50,000 and deposit it in the Chief Justice`s Relief Fund.
The amount should be paid in four weeks, failing which the Registrar-General should initiate contempt proceedings,Justice G M Akbar Ali said while passing orders on a petition by VCK member S P Velayutham.
Velayutham had sought a direction to quash proceedings against him before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He submitted that Rakindo Developers Private Ltd,Alwarpet, had preferred a complaint against him and four others for allegedly receiving Rs 171.11 crore towards a real estate transaction regarding properties with a defective title.
He was also charged with failing to return the amount. Later, on a petition by the company, the High Court ordered the case to be handed over to CBI. The order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Even while the appeal was pending, the CBI filed its final report before the magistrate.
Velaytham had moved the court stating that a compromise had been reached between him and the complainant and sought quashing of the proceedings against him.
In his order, Justice Akbar Ali noted that Velayutham and the firm had reached a compromise and that the complainant had received almost Rs 170 crore from him. It was well settled that if the dispute involved had overtones of civil nature with certain criminal facets, courts could interfere and exercise its power under Sec 482 Cr.P.C.,
he said adding the present case also fitted in the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Judge it was evident from records that the petitioner had been pressurised to repay the entire outstanding. He said the parties could not be allowed to enrich themselv
themselves to settle scores by invoking the discretionary powers of the High Court.
Stating that there should be a severe warning to the new creed of litigants, the Judge however, said the court at the same time could not ignore the petitioner`s plight.