T.K. KOYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Criminal Original petitions are arising out of a single First Information Report in crime No. 1 of 1998 on the file of the respondent police and on identical allegations and the cases are pending in C.C. No. 21, 25 and 24 of 2006 respectively on the file of the same court, namely, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal, and as such all these petitions have been taken up together for hearing and passing this common order. The petitioners have been arrayed as A2 in all these matters. The petitioner in Crl O.P. Nos. 7827 of 2007 has been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 120B r/w 420, 406, 467, 471 and 406 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner in Crl O.P. No. 20841 has been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 120B r/w 406 r/w 34 IPC. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 24948 of 2007 has been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w 406 r/w 34 and 467 IPC. It is seen that after registering the cases in all these matters, the respondent filed the charge sheet against them for the offences as stated above.

(2.) The crux of the allegation made against the petitioners/A2 in all the three cases is that A1/Mr. John who is the main accused and the General Manager of the Kalaimagal Sabha, along with the petitioners/A2 entered into an agreement of sale as A-2 acted as a mediators/Real Estate brokers for the purchase of properties in different places and in certain transactions, the purchased properties have not been conveyed of transferred to the main accused/A1 and in certain other transactions, namely, agreement for sale has been entered between the parties and not culminated into any sale deed and under the guise of purchase of lands A1 and A2 conspired together siphoned off and misappropriated the funds of Kalaimagal Sabha.

(3.) Mr. K. Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitions have acted only as real estate brokers with the main accused and the materials available on record do not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against them. It is contended that the allegations leveled against the petitioners would make it very clear that the said allegations are in relation to certain alleged transaction took place between the petitioners and the main accused in respect of purchase of land. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that even initially, after the submission of the report by the investigating officer, the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, opined that the proceedings in respect of the petitioners are liable to be dropped. It is contended that even assuming that the said allegations are true, the same would constitute only a civil liability and as such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of court. The learned counsel would further contend that the statements recorded from the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not implicate the petitioners in any manner and there is absolutely no material available on record to implicate the petitioners herein for the alleged offences and as such, the proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed. It is further contended that on the other hand, there are materials available on record to show that this is a clear case of mere breach of contract between the first accused and the petitioners and the same cannot give rise to criminal prosecution and there is absolutely no material to make out a case of fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of the transaction.