PARAMESWARAN Vs. STATE REP BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 27.03.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.5609 of 2013 in C.C.No.241 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the charges, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner is A2 in CC No.241 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore. There is another accused by name Murugan (A1), Son of Arumugam. A1 stood charged for offence under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC whereas A2, the petitioner herein stood charged for offence under Section 420 r/w 109 of IPC.

(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the 2nd respondent herein [hereinafter referred to as "the de facto complainant "] is the owner of a property situated near Cuddalore bus stand. He proposed to construct a row of shops in the above landed property. A1 approached the de facto complainant and requested him to let out a commercial space in the shops on lease to him for the purpose of running a textile business. A1 offered to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as advance. On 05.03.2007, A1 and the de facto complainant entered into an agreement of lease in writing and A1 had paid Rs.10,00,000/- as advance to the de facto complainant under the agreement. Subsequently, A1 thought of running a hotel business instead of textile business. He, therefore, made a request to the de facto complainant that he wanted to run a hotel business in the premises that was being proposed to let out and wanted the de facto complainant to alter the constructions to suit his convenience. While so, there arose a dispute between A1 and the de facto complainant. Therefore, the de facto complainant decided to cancel the lease agreement. In this regard, the de facto complainant sought the advise of one Shri.Ravindran (L.W.2), who, in turn, informed that his Auditor, the petitioner herein was the Auditor for A1 also and assured the de facto complainant that he would settle the dispute through the petitioner. Then, both the de facto complainant and L.W.2 approached the petitioner and the petitioner, in turn, contacted A1 and informed them that A1 had agreed for cancellation of lease agreement subject to payment of Rs.3,00,000/- over and above the advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner assured the de facto complainant that he would get the lease agreement cancelled and return the original lease agreement. In the above circumstances, on 22.08.2003, the de facto complainant, L.W.2 and L.W.3, who was an Advocate by profession, went to the office of the petitioner along with a deed of cancellation of lease agreement, which was already prepared by the de facto complainant with a cash of Rs.13,00,000/- Thereafter when the de facto complainant contacted A1 over phone from his office and A1 assured him that he would come and collect the cancellation deed and cash from the petitioner. The de facto complainant therefore handed over the deed of cancellation and also the cash to the petitioner. The de facto complainant waited there for the arrival of A1 till noon. In the mean time, the petitioner has gone for lunch after having handed over the cash and the document to his Manager one Shri.Baskar (L.W.9) and asked him to get the signature of A1 on the deed of cancellation and hand over the cash to him. At that time, the petitioner has assured the de facto complainant that he would get the things done. After two days, when the de facto complainant met the petitioner, he handed over the deed of cancellation duly signed by A1 and also returned the original lease agreement. But, subsequently, the de facto complainant came to know that A1 had handed over a forged deed through A2 and he retained the original deed in his possession thereby A1 along with A2 cheated him. Later on, A1 had also filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the de facto complainant before the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore.