IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.O.P.Nos.8575 and 8580 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 (both cases) A.M.Mohan .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8575/10 A.Valluvan .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8580/10 Vs. 1.State by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team IV, Egmore, Chennai. 2.AL Triven Steels Limited represented by its Director S.Nagarajan 3.IVR Prime Urban Developers Limited No.30A, South Phase, 6th Cross Street, Thiru Vi Ka Industraial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 003 .. Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps. Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.96 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Natarajan, Senior counsel for (in Crl.O.P.No.8575/10) Mr.V.S.Senthil Kumar For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Senior (in Crl.O.P.No.8580/10) counsel for Mr.Abudukumar Rajratnam For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Saravanan, GA (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : Mr.P.L.Narayanan for Mr.P.R.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent 3 : Mr.N.R.Elango for M/s.Nathan & Associates C O M M O N O R D E R These two petitions are preferred by the accused in Crime No.96 of 2010 and seek quash of investigation therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The defacto complainant informed that his company viz., AL Triven Steels Limited was engaged in the real estate business in India and had entered into a memorandum of understanding with one IVR Prime Urban Developers Limited towards purchase of lands in specified areas. The accused herein had approached the defacto complainant, informed of good experience in the field and of a good tie up with the villagers and land owners in the specified areas and offered services. Memorandum of understanding dated 03.08.2007 was entered into between the defacto complainant and the 1st accused in Crl.O.P.No.8575 of 2010 and a consideration of Rs.31,50,000/- per acre was agreed upon. During November'07, the 1st accused informed that 'second Mrs.D.Sundarambal' was the lawful owner of prime properties of an approximate extent of 20 acres and offered to sell the same in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.08.2007. The defacto complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,09,00,000/- in favour of 'second Mrs.D.Sundarambal' under 10 demand drafts dated 29.11.2007, 01.12.2007 and 04.12.2007. The said 'second Mrs.D.Sundarambal' had given a specific Power of Attorney vide document No.62 of 2007 to register lands only of an extent of 5.09 acres. The sale consideration thereof would be Rs.1,60,33,500/- and the 1st accused had agreed to keep the balance amount of Rs.3,48,66,500/- as advance towards the rest of the properties to be purchased. The complaint further informs of encashment of demand drafts in a sum of Rs.2,59,00,000/- by the 1st accused operating false bank account by fabricating relevant documents and impersonating 'second Mrs.D.Sundarambal'. The complaint also informs of the accused having brought several persons as land owners and of the complainant having made full payment to such persons on the request of the accused and proportionate to the land extent shown as owned by them. According to the defacto complainant, the accused persons having obtained full payment on behalf of the land owners for the land shown, had registered only a part of the land in favour of the defacto complainant and nominees and thereby cheated the defacto complainant in a sum of Rs.27,00,00,000/-. On such complaint, the case has been registered for offences under sections 419, 420 r/w.34 IPC. 3.Mr.N.Natarajan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8575 of 2010 would inform that M/s.IVR Prime Urban Developers Ltd. had entered into several contracts with the complainant/2nd respondent towards purchase of more than 700 acres in three villages. Certain extents of land had been purchased for the said company. Admittedly, there were two vendors of property answering to the name of 'Sundarambal'. There was no dispute over the payment of a sum of Rs.2,65,00,000/- to the 'first Sundarambal' towards purchase of her properties. The alleged dispute was of encashment of sum of Rs.2,59,00,000/- through a forged bank account by impersonating the 'second Sundarambal'. A part of the sum in respect of which offences are complained of, have been paid to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vendor viz., 'second Sundarambal' and four sale deeds had been executed by her. The remaining sums had been paid to the facilitators. It is difficult to understand what the quarrel was about. Properties had been purchased from the 'first Sundarambal' on payment of consideration and she had no complaint. The sale by the 'second Sundarambal' was reflected in four sale deeds and such vendor had no complaint. The purchaser of the property viz., IVR Prime Urban Developers Limited had filed a counter statement before this Court and they had nothing to complain about. While so, a false and frivolous complaint had been filed making charges of impersonation, cheating and criminal misappropriation, almost three years after the transaction stood completed. Offence of impersonation is alleged on the basis of mere oral statements without any other supporting material. Clearly, all that transpired was pursuant to agreement between parties and the very fundamental requisites to make out the offence of cheating i.e., deception at inception was missing. The entire moneys had been dealt with through bank transactions. In fact, the bank had taken care to verify the encashment of pay orders issued to the vendor and the purchaser had informed the bank that they had no objection to the demand drafts/ pay orders being encashed by the purchaser and had informed that such payments were made towards land related and other incidental expenditures incurred by the 3rd respondent. Property which initially was priced at Rs.31,00,000/- per acre have moved up to Rs.1,00,00,000/- and now in arbitration, a claim of Rs.140 crores had been made. There was absolutely no basis or any proof of the allegation of the 1st accused having pocketed the moneys involved in the transaction. 4.Adopting the arguments of learned Senior counsel Mr.N.Natarajan, learned Senior counsel, Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, appearing for the petitioner/accused in Crl.O.P.No.8580 of 2010 would inform that none of the persons involved in the transaction had come forward to say that offence of cheating stood committed. The intent of the complainant/2nd respondent to merely harass the petitioners/accused could be guaged from the total non co-operative attitude of the complainant/2nd respondent in the arbitral proceedings as reflected in the minutes of arbitration meeting held on 10.03.2010. If indeed, there had been any wrong doing with regard to the deposit of demand drafts and encashment thereof, it would be for the bank to complain. As already submitted, the bank had taken due care to satisfy itself as to the veracity of the transactions. 5.Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would inform that the 3rd respondent was the purchaser of the property and he had made the payments therefor. Such payment was made knowing fully well that two women by the name of 'Sundarambal' were involved. The concerned bank had confirmed that the 'second Sundarambal' was an account holder. Learned Senior counsel would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contend that when the 3rd respondent/purchaser of the property informs that he had not been cheated, the defacto complainant cannot be said to be aggrieved and would have no locus standi to prefer the complaint. 6. Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would state that the first information report in the case did inform of commission of offences of impersonation and cheating. The same disclosed prima facie evidence in proof thereof and merely by a slip therein informing of 'second Sundarambal', much was sought to be made thereof by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As a fact, there was only one Sundarambal. Learned counsel would painstakingly take this Court through various papers towards informing why investigation was called for in the case. He would refer this Court to the special power to present documents for registration at Sub-Registrar Office, Walajabad which had been registered as document No.62 of 2007 and inform that while at page 1 thereof, the address of Sundarambal, W/o.K.Devanathan, had been shown as 8/7, Cresent Road, Shenoy Nagar West, Chennai – 600 030, that in sale deed dated 05.12.2007 registered as document No.14156 of 2007 had been shown as North Street, C.I.T. Nagar West, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. He would then refer to the notice alleging malpractice issued to both accused, wherein the address of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8575 of 2010 had been shown to be 8/7, Cresent Road, Shenoy Nagar West, Chennai – 600 030. Learned counsel would submit that this would raise a prima facie suspicion, as such notice had been received and replied to. Learned counsel would point out that Sundarambal had no address of her own, but what was shown as her address was that of the petitioner/accused in Crl.O.P.No.8575 of 2010. 7. Learned counsel would inform that complaint was of the date 01.01.2010 and the FIR in the case had been registered on 25.02.2010. This Court had ordered stay of the investigation pursuant to the present original petitions on 23.04.2010. Even so, by such time, much had been garnered by the investigation. Learned counsel would refer to the letter of the Karur Vysya Bank dated 19.04.2010, which informed of the various demand drafts favouring 'D.Sundarambal' having been encashed through an account held by her and of the said Sundarambal having been introduced to the bank by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8575 of 2010. Such letter also informs of accounts of both Sundarambal and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8575 of 2010 having been opened at the same period. Learned counsel would show that the credit proceeds of the demand drafts issued in favour of 'D.Sundarambal' and credited to her account had been transferred to the account of the firm of the accused. Similarly, the demand drafts drawn in favour of several alleged property vendors had been received by the accused and they too have been encashed through the account of such firm. Again, learned counsel would inform that the person https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ introduced to the bank as Sundarambal was indeed one Senthamarai W/o. Narayanaswami and sister of the 1st accused. The photograph of Sundarambal W/o. K.Devanathan, copy of which is affixed to the special power registered as document No.62 of 2007 clearly reveals the position that, such was not the person who had been introduced as Sundarambal to the bank. The photograph held by the bank was that of Senthamarai W/o. Narayanaswami. Therefore, it is contended that there was more than prima facie material of commission of offence of cheating and impersonation. 8.Mr.N.Natarajan, learned Senior counsel, would by way of reply submit that the respondents could not utilize the function of the State to achieve personal ends. The case was of private nature involving no public interest and one which the respondent had not pursued for almost three years. Learned Senior counsel would touch upon the K.J.Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition towards informing that the 2nd respondent could not be an aggrieved person. 9. In response, Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned counsel would state that the complaint did inform that however 'out of the land bank for which we made full payment, both of them got registered only a part of the lands in favour of our nominees but have collected entire payment from us for all the lands on behalf of the land owners and thus cheated us to the tune of Rs.27,00,00,000/-'. This reflected the position that the complainant/2nd respondent's moneys also were involved in the offence committed and as such the complainant/2nd respondent would be an aggrieved person. This apart, it is submitted that the concept of locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence. Learned counsel would refer to several decisions in support of his contentions. 10.Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior counsel would contend that the fact of the 2nd respondent being in possession of material which would be possessed by the investigating agency was itself a matter which called for enquiry. 11.I have considered the rival submissions. 12.Towards avoiding undue influence, this Court will not enter upon a detailed discussion on the materials placed before it. Suffice it to state that a prima facie case does exist against the petitioners. Rather than pondering over how material is before this Court, this Court would look into the same for the purpose of prima facie appreciation. Doing so leads this Court to the inference that the case in Crime No.96 of 2010 would call for further investigation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar gm To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team IV, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4 cc to Mr.P.R.Dineshkumar, Advocate, Sr.No.55641,55640,55362,55363 2 cc to Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, Advocate, Sr.No.55607 2 cc to Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar, Advocate, Sr.No.55606 2 cc to M/s.Nathan and Associates, Advocate, Sr.No.55019,55307 Judgment in Crl.O.P.Nos.8575 and 8580 of 2010 SGL {CO} TP/2.8.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/