T H MOHAMMED FAROOK Vs. MURUGANANTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.468 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Kancheepuram. In such case, the petitioners stand accused of offences under Sections 420 and 294(b) r/w.506(ii) IPC.

(2.) THE gist of the complaint is as follows: THE accused approached the complainant on 28.01.2006, informed that they hold an extent of 40 acres 55 cents at Tammanur village and at the complainant's office and in the presence of witnesses requested him to purchase the same. An agreement was entered into whereby the sale consideration was arrived at Rs.16,22,000/- and an advance of Rs.41,000/- was paid on 28.01.2006 by the complainant to the accused. THE complainant was put in possession of the property. On the assurance that he could develop the property, the complainant spent huge sums of money for such purpose. Though the accused were called upon to execute sale deed within the period stipulated in the agreement, the accused purposely avoided doing so with intent of usurping the advance paid by the complainant. Doubting the intent of the accused, the complainant caused a legal notice on 03.03.2006. As there was no response, the complainant made enquiries and learnt that the accused were habitually involved in entering into an agreement of sale, causing the agreement period to elapse and usurping the advance paid. THE complainant made one final attempt by contacting the accused over phone. THE 1st accused informed that the land would not be transferred. Feeling cheated the complainant filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District on 15.03.2006. While matters stood thus, the accused came to the complainant's office at about 11 a.m. on 02.11.2006, demanded return of the agreement for sale as also an authorisation letter to which the complainant retorted that by placing trust in what the accused had led him to believe, he had spent huge sums of money for developing the property, informed that he was willing to pay the entire sale consideration and required the accused to effect sale of property. THE 2nd petitioner/accused informed that the accused party had entered into an agreement for sale of the property with a third party and that the complainant could not receive either the property or any money from them. When the complainant impressed upon them that he was in possession of the property, the 1st accused got angry and abused him in foul language and stated that if the documents were not handed over by the complainant as demanded, it was possible for him to do away with the complainant and also retain the money. THE 2nd petitioner/accused stated that by using their henchmen the complainant would be done away with. THE witnesses present informed the accused that their conduct was poor and wanting to which the 2nd petitioner/accused replied that they would not be cowed down by any complaint, nothing could be done to them and neither the property nor the advance would be returned. THE 1st accused beat the complainant, others intervened and the accused shouted that the complainant could do what he liked and that they would do away with him and left the place. It is on such allegations that the complaint has been filed.

(3.) BY way of reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that a reading of the complaint would show that the offences alleged stood clearly made out. It is upon such satisfaction that the lower Court had taken cognizance and when such is a case, this Court would not interfere. Learned counsel would submit that having entered into the agreement dated 28.01.2006, the petitioners had by notice dated 17.03.2006 taken the stand that the company M/s.Shoreline Farms Pvt.Ltd. was the owner of a larger portion of the property covered under the agreement, that the agreement for sale had not been entered into by the 1st petitioner on the strength of any resolution passed by such Company and that the 2nd petitioner had not consented to sell the property and raised the claim that the agreement for sale was nonest and not valid nor enforceable. Thus, the learned counsel submits, it was apparent that having received the advance of Rs.41,000/-, the petitioners with criminal intention sought to wriggle out of the agreement. The very stand taken in the reply notice dated 17.03.2006 made it clear that the intent to cheat existed even at the time the agreement for sale was entered into on 28.01.2006. As regards the receipt and encashment of the demand draft for a sum of Rs.41,000/- by the complainant, it is submitted that such amount was a part of the amount due under a separate transaction whereunder the 1st petitioner had on execution of a pro-note borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-. After adjustment of the payment of Rs.41,000/- towards part payment of the due under the pro-note, the complainant had filed a separate suit before the Court of District Munsif, Chengalpet. Such is the explanation offered for non-mentioning of the fact of receipt of Rs.41,000/- in the complaint. On the failure to mention a notice issued by the petitioners on 06.06.2006 wherein the petitioners had referred to their notice of 17.03.2006 wherein it was informed that the agreement for sale was nonest and unenforceable and also informed about the wrongful conduct of the complainant in visiting their house with henchmen on 24.05.2006 and threatening the petitioners and their family members with dire consequences, informed their having preferred complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai and called upon the complainant to desist from such unlawful and illegal activities, it is submitted that the notice was received only by the learned counsel for the respondent, and that the respondent had no knowledge thereof. In immediate response, the learned counsel for the petitioners refers this Court to the notice dated 06.06.2006 to inform that the same was addressed to the respondent at his residential address. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in receipt of the pro-note, on the strength of which the respondent has preferred a suit, the genuineness of the pro-note had been challenged by the 1st petitioner.