CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has stayed all further proceedings pending before the Kanthuvatti cell of Central Crime Branch here against film financier G N Anbuchezhian (50) of Keeraithoppu in Madurai, the accused in film director and actor Ashok Kumar suicide case.
Anbuchezhiyan is facing arrest on the alleged charge of abetting Ashok Kumar to commit suicide on November 21 last and he is absconding since then.
Justice M S Ramesh granted the temporary relief on Tuesday while passing interim orders on a criminal original petition from Anbuchezhian, which sought to quash the entire proceedings pending before the special cell. The court posted the matter for further hearing on January 29.
In his petition, Anbuchezhian passed the entire blame on actor and director M Sasikumar, who had borrowed huge sums from him. According to him, Sasikumar had availed himself of financial assistance from him for the production of Tamil feature film Tharai Thappattai, which did not perform up to expectation and caused huge loss.
While Sasikumar was taking steps to release the present film Kodiveeran, for which also he borrowed a huge sum from the petitioner, Anbuchezhian insisted upon him to settle the outstanding amount along with interest thereof. In the event the said amount was not paid, he would not allow him to release the film Kodiveeran, the petitioner had threatened. Since Sasikumar was busy with his next (third) film, his manager Ashok Kumar dealt with financial issues. While so, Ashok Kumar committed suicide on November 21 last leaving behind a note.
The petitioner contended that Sasikumar, in his complaint, had cleverly suppressed the fact about the money he had borrowed from the petitioner. The entire allegation coupled with the alleged suicide note, under no stretch of imagination would constitute an offence against the petitioner. At no point of time, the deceased Ashok Kumar borrowed any money from the petitioner. It was only Sasikumar, who did so. It was the practice that the principal amount and the interest was fully settled only on release of the film. There was nothing between the petitioner and the deceased, the petitioner alleged.