VIJAYARANI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioners praying to quash the complaint in Crime No. 419 of 2014 pending on the file of the Central Crime Branch, XVIII Team, Vepery, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 3 & 4 in this case. The complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent herein against the accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420, 506(i) r/w 120(b) IPC, stating that the accused 1 & 2 viz., one Leelabai and her son Ajithkumar are the owners of the land and building measuring an extent of 2 grounds 665 sq.ft. situated in T.S. No. 5738 Part, New T.S. No. 9012/1B, Block No. 130, at Door No. 9, South Usman Road, T. Nagar Village, Chennai. In order to sell the said property, the accused 1 & 2 approached the 2nd respondent/defacto -complainant and the 2nd respondent/defacto -complainant has also agreed to purchase the said property. The 2nd respondent/defacto -complainant and one Pathmachand @ Padmaraj Jain jointly entered into a sale agreement with the accused 1 & 2 for the purchase of the said property and the same was registered on 08.01.2008 vide Doc. No. 22/2008 registered at Sub -Registrar Office at T. Nagar. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs. 6 crores. The said Pathmachand @ Padmaraj Jain joined the 2nd respondent/defacto -complainant in the execution of the sale deed only as a formal party, since he is a friend of the defacto -complainant; however, the said Pathmachand @ Padmaraj Jain did not make any contribution for the purchase of the said property. At the time of execution of the sale agreement i.e., on 12.12.2007, the defacto -complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of cash to the said Leelabai and Ajithkumr (A1 & A2) towards the advance sale consideration. The defacto -complainant had further agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,95,00,000/ - within three months from the date of vacating the tenants and having the premises vacant. As such the final payment has to be paid by the defacto -complainant, after vacating the tenants by the vendors. After the execution of the said sale agreement dated 12.12.2007, the defacto -complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs by way of cash on 27.12.2007 and another sum of Rs. 50 lakhs by way of cash on 29.01.2008, in all totalling a sum of Rs. 1 crores has been paid by the defacto -complainant to the said Leelabai and Ajithkumar (A1 & A2) towards the advance sale consideration. After receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs. 1 crore, the said Leelabai and Ajithkumar have not taken any steps to vacate the existing tenants from the building premises as per their commitment in the agreement dated 12.12.2007 and they have not come forward to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the defacto -complainant, by receiving the balance sale consideration. While so, during the 1st week of April, 2013, when the defacto -complainant visiting the accused 1 & 2 at their residence and requested to perform their part of the contract, to his shock and surprise, he came to know that the said Pathmachand @ Padmaraj Jain had colluded with the accused 1 & 2 and unilaterally cancelled the sale agreement dated 12.12.2007, without the consent of the defacto -complainant, wherein the said Pathmachand @ Padmaraj Jain had stated that he had received his 50% share of the advance amount, which the petitioner had paid at the time of entering into the sale agreement dated 12.12.2007. The said Pathmachand @ Padmaraj Jain had illegally and fraudulently cancelled the sale agreement dated 12.12.2007 and fraudulently received 50% of the advance amount, which the defacto -complainant had paid at the time of entering into the sale agreement. On the strength of cancelling the said sale agreement, the vendors viz., the said Leelabai and Ajithkumar (A1 & A2) had illegally and clandestinely alienated 50% of the aforesaid property in favour of one Mr. Marimuthu (2nd petitioner) and presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub -Registrar, T. Nagar, which is now pending before the Sub -Registrar Office, Saidapet, Chennai. In view of the sale agreement dated 12.12.2007 registered by the defacto -complainant, the Sub -Registrar had kept the document viz., the sale deed presented by the said Leelabai and Ajithkumar, as pending document. On coming to know about the defacto -complainant's objection in registering their sale deed, the accused persons started to threaten the defacto -complainant with dire consequence. Thereafter, the defacto -complainant obtained Encumbrance Certificate and found that a portion of the subject property was sold to one Marimuthu (2nd petitioner herein). Hence, the defacto -complainant lodged a complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Vepery and the same was registered on 11.02.2014 in Crime No. 83 of 2014 under Ss. 406, 420 & 120(b) IPC against the accused persons viz., 1) Leelabai, 2) Ajithkumar, 3) Pathmachand @ Pathmaraj Jain, 4) Marimuthu. On the next day, i.e., on 12.02.2014, the accused 1 & 2 viz., Leelabai and Ajithkumar sold the remaining portion of the said land in favour of one Vijayarani (1st petitioner herein), wife of the said Marimuthu (2nd petitioner herein). On coming to know about the said execution of sale deed, the defacto -complainant approached the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate for Land Grabbing Cases -I, Periamet, for direction to register a case. Pursuant to the direction given by the learned Magistrate, the present complaint was registered in Crime No. 419 of 2014 under Ss. 406, 420, 506(i) r/w 120(b) IPC, against the accused persons viz., 1) Leelabai, 2) Ajithkumar, 3) Vijayarani & 4) Marimuthu.

(3.) Now, the petitioners, who have been arrayed as A3 & A4, have filed the present petition before this Court seeking to quash the complaint in Crime No. 419 of 2014.