N.VANCHIMUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Special Court, TNPID Act, Madurai, in Crime No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing - II, Dindigul as against the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that Accused Nos.1 to 4 were running a Finance Company in the name and style of "Ravi and Co. Bankers" as a partnership business. They collected deposits from the general public by promising to repay with interest and committed default in repayment of deposits. On the complaint, the F.I.R has been registered in Crime No.1 of 2005 for the offences under Ss. 406, 418, 420, 423 and 120(b) of I.P.C on the file of the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing - II, Dindigul. In pursuant to the registration of F.I.R, the Government attached the leasehold premises of the petitioner/5th accused, namely "Hotel Swagath", which was originally belonged to Accused Nos.1 to 4, by G.O.Ms.No.1326, Home (Courts-2A) Department, dtd. 18/12/2000 by way of interim attachment under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1987 (in short hereinafter referred to as "TNPID Act"). In the meanwhile, Accused Nos.1 to 4 filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5342 of 2001 before this Court challenging the interim attachment and it was disposed of by the Principal Bench of this Court on 2/7/2001 on condition to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000.00 per month by Accused Nos.1 to 4, till further orders passed by the Special Court. The interim attachment of the property was made absolute, by an order, dtd. 19/5/2003 by the Special Court under the TNPID Act, Madurai. While being so, Accused Nos.1 to 4 approached the petitioner/Accused No.5 lessee with a proposal for sale of the said property in order to settle their dues. Accordingly, they sold out the hotel premises to the petitioner/Accused No.5 by the registered sale deed, dtd. 11/8/2003 for the sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000.00. Hence, the District Revenue Officer preferred a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.1 of 2005 for the offences under Ss. 406, 418, 420, 423 and 120(b) of I.P.C, in which, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.5. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed the final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Special Court for TNPID Cases, Madurai.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, being a lessee, had absolutely no knowledge about the attachment against the subject property. From the total consideration, a sum of Rs.45,50,323.00 has to be settled by the petitioner in respect of the claim of 70 private money lenders. The balance sale consideration was duly received by Accused Nos.1 to 4 and executed sale deed, dtd. 11/8/2003. Only thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the attachment of the property and the petitioner was directed by the competent authority, namely the District Revenue Officer, to continue to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 per month till March 2005 to the credit of the original case of depositors pending in C.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court, TNPID Act, Madurai. So far, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.27,50,000.00. The present complaint is registered for the allegation that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner during attachment with dishonest intention to defraud the depositors by Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the registering authority having knowledge about service of notice of attachment have involved in the sale of the subject property and the attachment. In pursuant to the registration of F.I.R, the subject premises was seized from the possession of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner had settled the dues of the depositors and sought for handing over the possession. During enquiry, the petitioner made settlement directly with the depositors and produced the list of 297 depositors receipts and acknowledgments from 296 depositors in proof of settlement of payment by the petitioner on behalf of Accused Nos.1 to 4. The possession of the subject property was also handed over to the petitioner and in fact, the petitioner also amicably settled the dues, if any, to discharge. Again the subject property was attached for recovery of financial dues of Rs.21,94,860.00 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.4124 of 2016 for a direction to remove the seal and hand over possession of the property with an undertaking to pay the entire dues. This Court, by an order, dtd. 29/2/2016, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.22,00,000.00 to the credit of O.A.No.19 of 2011 and further directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000.00 per month for three months and further, the entire dues were fully settled by the petitioner and the subject property had been handed over to the petitioner. In view of the above settlement, the Special Court under TNPID Act acquitted all Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.1 of 2008 by Judgment, dtd. 29/12/2016. Now, the trial Court proceeded with the trial on the subsequent complaint registered in Crime No.1 of 2005 for the offences under Ss. 406, 418, 420, 423 and 120(b) of I.P.C.