A M MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are preferred by the accused in Crime No.96 of 2010 and seek quash of investigation therein.

(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.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 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.