The Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment made in
C.C.No.12 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024 on the file of the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate No.4, Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
2. This case is a classical example that startly illustrates in a blatant
mockery of justice, highlighting significant procedural lapses and
questionable judicial decisions.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner/
complainant is running a finance business along with his family members,
that the revision petitioner had acquaintance with the second respondent/
first accused (hereinafter will be referred as ‘first accused’) from 2008
onwards, who was owning a lorry and was acting as an agent for getting
vehicle loans for lorries from financiers, that the first accused had
approached the revision petitioner and requested to extend credit facilities
for purchase of lorries for other persons, that the revision petitioner based
on the assurance of the first accused had travelled to Kovilpatti and
advanced loan amounts for purchasing lorries, that the revision petitioner
had advanced several lakhs of rupees to the first accused, who in turn
advanced the said amounts for purchasing lorries at a higher loan rates and
was acting as an agent for the revision petitioner, that the first accused,
after earning substantial amounts of money from the higher interest, he
along with his son third respondent/second accused (hereinafter will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
referred as ‘second accused’) had started their own finance business in the
name of ‘R.G.Ravikumar Auto Consulting and Finance’ and continued to
act as the finance agent of the revision petitioner, that the accused 1 and 2
generally used to collect original documents pertaining to the lorries and
keep it under their custody and after repayment of the entire loan amount,
the revision petitioner used to issue Form 35 by affixing their rubber
stamp seal, signature and No Objection letter, that the accused 1 and 2
have also requested the revision petitioner to advance loans based on
property documents, that the revision petitioner had advanced vehicle
loans for a total of 73 lorries under the assurance of the accused 1 and 2,
that the accused 1 and 2 remained very evasive around the end of the year
2022 and failed to repay monthly loan amount, which was due for more
than 20 lorries, that the revision petitioner doubting the genuineness of the
accused 1 and 2 had visited Kovilpatti and enquired with the officials in
Regional Transport Office (RTO), Kovilpatti and came to understand that
he was cheated and for 13 lorries which the revision petitioner had
advanced loan, Form 35 and No Objection Letter were created by the
accused 1 and 2 by affixing the forged rubber stamp of the revision
petitioner and forged signature of the revision petitioner, that the revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
petitioner had been cheated to the tune of Rs.45,31,700/- for 13 lorries,
that the accused 1 and 2 had also failed to furnish accounts on a weekly
basis and swindled money to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs and that therefore the
revision petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint.