PRAKASH CHAND Vs. MEENA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are A-1 to A-7 in C.C.Nos.7873, 7876 and 7874 of 1999 respectively on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. To quash the said proceedings, the above said criminal original petitions have been filed before this Honourbale Court.

(2.) A private complaint has been filed by the complainant/the respondent herein, which is a re-constituted firm. Originally, the name of the firm was 'Vel Murugan Constructions'. As per the allegations and averments made in the private complaint, A-8 is the daughter of one Jayalakshmi, who is the original owner of a property bearing Old No.36 and New No.1, Second Main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. She has borrowed Rs.75,000/- from the complainant during 1977, against the said property, by way of equitable mortgage. It has been stated that the value of the property is Rs.1,30,000/- at that time. A-8, on the strength of the Will, executed by her mother, executed a Power of Attorney to the second accused. It is alleged that the second accused executed 14 sale deeds to the other accused, viz., his family members. It is further alleged that such power of attorney and sale of the property to all the accused have been done with dishonest intention and when requested, though they have initially promised to re-convey the same, subsequently, refused to do so, resulting in the filing of the complaint.

(3.) I have perused the materials available on record. On the face of the allegations and averments made in the complaint as well as the sworn statement, details have been given regarding the properties. Through the power given to the second accused, the property has been conveyed to the other accused. Power has been given by he 8th accused to the 2nd accused. The claim of the complainant is that by virtue of the earlier transaction, she is the owner of the property. The same has been suppressed, though the 8th accused was aware of the earlier transaction. Under such circumstances, I find, on going through the materials available on record, the allegations and averments made in the complaint and the sworn statement, prima facie materials are available to proceed against the petitioners/accused. I do not find any merit to quash the proceedings at the threshold. However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate all the grounds before the trial Court at the time of trial. With the above observation, the criminal original petitions are closed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps. are also closed. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-7 are ladies and their presence during the course of the trial may be exempted. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the presence of the accused could be exempted unless it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of the progress of the trial. Therefore, in the event of filing of such application for dispensing with their presence, the learned Magistrate may consider and pass orders in accordance with law.