S. MARTIN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused 2 and 3 have come forward with these criminal original petitions to quash the FIR in Cr. No. 304/2012 pending on the file of the respondent police.

(2.) THE FIR in Cr. No. 304/2012 was registered on the basis of the confession statement of one M. Nagarajan, who is arrayed as A1 in the above Crime Number, for the offences under sections 294A, 420 and 120B IPC. The complaint proceeds as if the respondent police, after giving prior intimation to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, regarding house search of one Nagarajan in Thillaiganga Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai, had been to the house of Nagarajan in the early morning hours on 12.3.2012 and reached the house along with Revenue Inspector by name Kanikainathan and his assistant by name Saranbabu. At the time of search, they found a sum of Rs. 7,20,05,000/ - in three bags and the same was seized in the presence of two witnesses and when Nagarajan/A1 was enquired, he gave a confession statement to the effect that A1 along with the petitioners herein, printed lottery tickets of Sikkim, Kerala and Maharashtra at Calcutta and Faridabad and sold the same unauthorisedly in other States as referred to above and also in Chennai and earned huge profit of Rs. 7,20,05,000/ - and the same was kept in his possession. The statement was recorded in the presence of the witnesses between 9.10 am and 10.30 am and the accused along with property seized were brought to S8, Adambakkam Police Station at 11.00 am and the case was registered as FIR in Cr. No. 304/2012 for the offences referred to above.

(3.) THE petitioners/A2 and A3, in these two petitions, seek to quash the FIR mainly on the following grounds: (i) the FIR registered against the petitioners and others is not maintainable; (ii) the allegations raised in the FIR and the materials collected during the course of investigation, do not disclose any prima facie case; (iii) the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294A, 420, 120b, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are not attracted in the present case; and (iv) the amount seized is accounted one representing part of the sale consideration for sale of the property belonging to A3 and the same is duly reflected in the income tax returns and is also duly accepted by the competent Income Tax authority.