HC refuses to quash criminal case against five who cheated woman

Madurai: Madras high court refused to quash a criminal case registered against five people for cheating a septuagenarian woman, who is an overseas resident of India in Singapore, by selling her properties and misappropriating the sale amount.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant one Magamatha is a septuagenarian and resident of Singapore holding an Overseas Citizen of India card. Her husband was a businessman involved in the shipping industry in Singapore and passed away in 2015 leaving behind huge properties in and around Thanjavur district. Her relatives instituted certain litigations with regard to the properties and she was finding it difficult to manage the litigations and the properties.Few people approached Magamatha and obtained her signatures in blank papers and also advised her to execute power deeds to save her properties. With these power documents and blank documents, they have created various sale deeds among themselves without her knowledge and misappropriated the sale amount. Based on her complaint, the Thanjavur district crime branch (DCB) unit registered a case against several people in 2025. Five accused moved court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them. In 2026, another case was also registered by the Tamil University police against people who attempted to intimidate the woman. Two accused moved court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them.Justice B Pugalendhi observed that all the materials make out a prima facie case registered by DCB against the accused and it needs to be investigated. The case of the complainant that the documents have been registered when she was in Singapore using fake life certificates also needs to be investigated by the police. Hence, the judge refused to quash the case and dismissed the petitions. The sub-registrars concerned, immigration authorities, forensic department and the income tax department are expected to cooperate with the investigating agency by furnishing the required documents without unnecessary delay.The judge observed that the allegations in the other criminal case is an act of intimidation. Admittedly, no injury was caused to the complainant. The court is of the opinion that the subsequent criminal case would only divert the issue. Hence, the judge quashed the criminal case and directed the police to provide necessary protection to the complainant.