Totally there are three accused.One Mrs.Jayalakshmi is Accused No.1 in the said case.The above said land was originally owned by their father Thomas Nadar.He died intestate leaving his three sons, the 2nd respondent herein and Sri.T.Shanmuga Sundaram and Sri.Therefore, both A1 and the 2nd respondent decided to enter into an agreement with the petitioners/A2 and A3 to develop the property.On the same day, The 2nd respondent has also executed two different general power of attorney deed one in favour of the petitioners and the other in favour of A1 to deal with the property in question.According to the 2nd respondent, A1 and the petitioners/A2 and A3 failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- within the time stipulated under the tripartite agreement and have sold out few flats to different persons.It is further alleged in the complaint by the 2nd respondent that despite cancellation of general power of attorney deeds and fact that the same was intimated to A1 to A3, still, they sold few more left out plots to Sri.B.Venkataraman and another and Sri.N.M.Sathish and others.Y.Jayashankar (A3) has been shown as Party of the Third Part and the parties have agreed upon as follows:"Whereas the sale could not be completed within the time frame stipulated in the Agreement dated 20.02.1997 and due to personal reason could not put up the said complex of flats and therefore approached the party of the third party, who are builders, for putting up construction in order to complete the agreement of sale by the party of the second part with the party of the First part.It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not parties to the earliest sale agreement.A perusal of the tripartite would go to show that A1 agreed to pay the balance sale consideration to the 2nd respondent.The petitioners are Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.6264 of 2011 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.A1 and the petitioners herein are said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.03.2012 framed charges against A1 and the petitioners for above said offences.Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this court with this criminal revision.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent/State.I have also perused the records carefully.When the 2nd respondent approached A1 to A3 for balance sale consideration, it is alleged that they threatened him with dire consequences.Hence, the complaint.Based on the above said complaint, a case in Crime No. 40 of 2008 came to be registered by the 1st respondent police for offence under Sections 406, 418 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.When the contract could not get concluded, on 10.12.1998, the de facto complainant and A1 and the petitioners entered into the tripartite agreement for the purpose of putting up construction in the land in question wherein the 2nd respondent has been shown as Part of the First Part, M/s.Mega Construction, a registered Partnership Firm, represented by one of its partner namely Mrs.Vijayalakshmi (A1) has been shown as Party of the Second Part and that M/s.The extract from the tripartite agreement with regard to payment clause reads thus:"(2) The Party of the Second Part shall pay the remain sale consideration i.e., Rs.1,10,25,000/- to the Party of the First Part as to the time schedule that follows:-(i) on the date of execution of this agreement a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only).(ii) A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on or before one month from the date of this Agreement.(iii) A sum of Rs.78,25,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs and Twenty Fine Thousand only) within a period of 12 months from the date of this Agreement."As a matter of fact, the petitioners who are developers under the tripartite agreement agreed to place security deposit of a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- by way of different banker's cheques.It has been further agreed under the tripartite agreement as follows:-The party of the second part agreed to pay the above mentioned Rs.78,25,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) as per Clause 2(iii) to Party of the First Part in stages whenever the sale deeds are being executed / registered in favour of the nominees of the Party of the Second Part, however, the balance consideration of Rs.78,25,000/- is to be paid before 12 months period from the date of this Agreement.With regard to entrustment of the property, it has been agreed under the tripartite agreement as follows:The Party of the First Part has handed over possession of the scheduled mentioned property to the Party of the Second Part on the date of this agreement and it shall be open to the Party of the Second Part to develop the property as to their choice or may enter into any agreement with third party for such development.For the reasons best known to them, the contract could not get completed in time.Therefore, both A1 and the de facto complainant have mutually agreed to develop the property and to entrust the construction work to a third party.Only thereafter, A1 and the de facto complainant and the petitioners entered into a tripartite agreement for the purpose of putting up construction in the vacant land in question.Even as per the Tripartite agreement only A1 has agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration and these petitioners agreed to pay security deposit of Rs.60,00,000/- in favour of A1 and absolutely there is no connection or agreement between the petitioners and A1 in the money transaction.After completion of construction, it was only A1 who sold some of the plots.The property was entrusted as per the tripartite agreement only to A1, who, in turn, as per the very same tripartite agreement, entrusted only the construction work to the petitioner.The petitioners are being developers, they have no way connected with any money transaction with the 2nd respondent.Neither there is allegation against the petitioners that the property in question was entrusted to them and that they dishonestly misappropriated it for their own use.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.6264 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to A2 and A3, the petitioners herein.It is made clear that whatever the observations made hereinabove were only for the purpose of deciding the case against the petitioners/A2 and A3 and that the trial court shall not influence by such observations.The trial court shall proceed with further as against A1 in accordance with law.Since the matter has been pending for a long time, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10..01..2017 kmk/vsi21.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.C.No.588 of 201210..01..2017

Cited provisions: Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code