P GOPIKRISHNAN ALIAS GOVINDARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 1 to 6 in this petition have been arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 6 in a case registered on the file of the City Crime Branch, Coimbatore City as Crime No.7 of 2007 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b) and Section 420 I.P.C. The said case was registered based on the complaint of the defacto complainant who has been arrayed as the 2nd respondent in this petition. The petitioners have sought for an order quashing the First Information Report by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Even though all the six accused persons have been joined together in filing the petition, subsequently the petitioners 1 and 2 / A1 and A2 seem to have engaged a different counsel. The present counsel on record for petitioners 1 and 2 alone appeared and the counsel who originally filed the petition on behalf of all the accused and has been retained by the petitioners 3 to 6 / A3 to A6 has chosen to keep away from the Court. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is also absent. Hence this Court is constrained to pass an order after hearing the submissions made by Mr.K.Kannan, learned counsel representing the petitioners 1 and 2 and Mr. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] representing the State.

(3.) A complaint was lodged by the second respondent herein / defacto complainant alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 120 (b) and 420 I.P.C by all the petitioners herein and based on the said complaint the above mentioned case in Crime No.7 of 2007 was registered on the file of City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. In fact, the complaint contains every details regarding the alleged cheating and conspiracy. According to the complaint, the defacto complainant was made to believe that on his payment of the amount due to the State Bank of India with which the property of the first petitioner had been mortgaged by deposit of title deeds, the same would be conveyed to the defacto complainant for a price agreed upon; that he had also made payments as advance and towards part payment of the sale consideration; that the defacto complainant also paid a sum of Rs.67,60,000/- to the State Bank of India for discharging the mortgage as per the understanding between the first respondent and the Bank as one time settlement; that the defacto complainant paid the said amount on the basis of a letter of consent and authorisation given by the first petitioner; that subsequent to the said payment of a total sum of Rs.60,60,000/- to the first petitioner as well as the State bank of India, Kurichi branch, the first petitioner was evading execution of sale deed; that subsequently on a suspicion regarding the bonafide of the first petitioner, the defacto complainant verified with the Office of the Sub-Registrar Ganapathi, Kovai whereupon to his shock and surprise, he found that a sale deed had been executed by the first petitioner in favour of petitioners 2 to 6 on 11.12.2006 in respect of a major part of the property, which was agreed to be sold to the defacto complainant and that only thereafter, he understood the fraud played upon him and cheating committed by the accused in coordination among them. It is the further averment made in the complaint that the first petitioner made false promise deceptively and thereby induced the defacto complainant to part with such a huge amount viz., Rs.67,60,000/- without a genuine intention of conveying the property to the defacto complainant and that the petitioners 2 to 6 helped the first petitioner in doing so.