R. KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal original petitions have been preferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 105 and 106 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur, wherein the petitioners are facing prosecution under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C., based on two separate charge sheets laid by the 1st respondent police.

(2.) The criminal law has been set in motion by UCO Bank, the 2nd respondent herein, stating that certain immovable properties belonging to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, have been sold in parts by their power of attorney agent, the 4th petitioner herein in favour of various third parties, in spite of the fact that the said properties were mortgaged in favour of the Bank. The 1st petitioner, who has availed loan from the Bank as against the said properties has also been arrayed as an accused with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C. The above complaint of the 2nd respondent Bank was registered by the 1st respondent police in Crime No.12 of 2009. However, after completion of investigation, strangely, two separate charge sheets have been laid as against the petitioners herein with verbatim identical allegations, except the details of the sale deeds and the names of the respective purchasers, in whose favour the properties that were mortgaged to the 2nd respondent Bank were sold. Since, the facts in both the cases are identical, a common order would suffice.

(3.) I heard Mr. T. Mohan for Mr. K. Surendar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. B. Ramesh Babu, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent in both the Crl.O.P.s and Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.13015 of 2010 and Mr. A. Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.13016 of 2010.