R JAYARAMAN Vs. K GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.2 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur, Salem District.

(2.) The case as found in the Private Complaint is that the de-facto Complainant was conducting a Chit Business at Attur till the year 2004, and petitioners 1 to 4 were subscribers to the said Chit and had paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-. This amount was not settled by the first respondent, and therefore petitioners 1 to 4 compelled the first respondent to execute a Power of Attorney in their favour. Left with no other option of the respondents executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first petitioner, and the same was duly registered before the Sub Registrar, Attur. The first petitioner also compelled the respondents to hand over the original title deed which was a Sale Deed dated 23.08.1993. Thereafter, the second and third petitioners compelled the respondents to register another Power of Attorney and took the original title deed. Similarly, the fourth petitioner also got a Power of Attorney executed in his favour on 25.08.2004, and also received the original title deed. That apart, the petitioners also obtained signatures in three blank stamp papers. The petitioners promised that, immediately after the repayment of the chit amount of Rs.8,50,000/- they will cancel the Power of Attorney document and hand over the original title deeds.

(3.) It is the further case in the Complaint that on 03.11.2004, the respondents had handed over the chit amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to petitioners 1, 3 and one Ranganathan. However, in spite of the receipt of the amount, the above said persons demanded more interest to a tune of a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- from the first respondent. When the first respondent approached the petitioners 1 and 3 with the interest amount, he was informed that the property has been leased in favour of third parties for a period of three years and after the competition of three years, the amount will be received and the original documents will be handed over. Even after the lapse of three years, the above said persons refused to accept the amount and also refused to hand over the original documents and also the possession to the respondents.