C SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the accused 1 to 8 in C.C.No.250 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti. This criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking relief to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.250 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Kovilpatti and to quash the same as erroneous.

(2.) On going through the records available with this application, it would disclose that a case has been registered against these petitioners herein in Crime No.205 of 2011 by the second respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 294(b), 406, 420, 506(ii) IPC, r/w 35 IPC and 25 (1-A) Indian Arms Act. Subsequent to the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Sections 420 IPC, r/w 120(b) IPC and 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w 114 IPC.

(3.) After receiving the said charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti taken the same on file as CC.No.250 of 2012 in which the petitioners are all arrayed as accused No.1 to 8. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that the petitioners are all close relatives. In the year 2006, the third respondent who is the defacto complainant made a consultation with the first, third, fourth and sixth petitioners and planned to made a partnership in the real estate business. Meanwhile on 08.10.2007, the third respondent joined as a teacher in a Government school. Thereafter all the petitioners herein made a conspiracy to cheat the third respondent in the real estate business and purchased a land in Allampatti village a land to the extent of 7 acre and 61 cents comprised in Survey No.218/B, 219, 218/1, 221/1 for Rs.3,08,33,600/. The said land was purchased only for the real estate business. Considering the fact that the third respondent is in the Government job, the said land was purchased in the name of the petitioners for which the third respondent invested 85% of the total sale amount. The said amount was invested only based on the belief made on the petitioners. Further he gave consent for registering the sale deed in favour of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 6th petitioners, thereby the petition mentioned land was purchased in the name of the above said persons. Subsequent to the purchase, the property was divided into plots and sold out to various persons between the period from 04.06.2009 to 17.09.2009. An amount of Rs.4,99,400/- was received by the petitioners as a sale amount. But the share of the third respondent has not been given to him as agreed. On 19.07.2010 the first and third petitioners executed an assurance deed to the third respondent in which it was mentioned as among 52 plots; the plots 67,68,69,70,71 in the Mahalaxshmi Nagar is allotted to the first and third petitioners and for the third respondent. But contrary to that assurance, on 19.07.2010 the above mentioned plots were given to one Dharmaraj through the General Power of Attorney which was executed by 1st, 3rd, 4th and 6th petitioners. The said execution of General Power of Attorney was suppressed in the assurance deed executed between the first, third petitioners and defacto complainant. Moreover the first, third, fourth and sixth petitioners executed one more Power of Attorney in favour of the fifth petitioner and the same was registered as a Document No.817 of 2010. In the same way another two Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the seventh petitioner in which eighth petitioner herein stood as a witness and signed in the document. In the course of subsequent transaction, the fourth petitioner sold out the plot No.68 to 70 to one Senthil Kumari and Muniyappasamy. After completing the sale, share in the sale amount was not handed over to the third respondent. Further more the first, third, fourth and sixth petitioners made a permission to the defacto complainant for executing the sale deed in favour of one S.Geetha, A.Sethuraman and S.Vijaya Rani. But after the execution of sale deed those petitioners did not come forward for registering the same as per the law required. Further on the date of execution on 28.07.2010, the first petitioner herein in front of the Sub Registrar Office abused the third respondent and threatened him by showing the revolver, whereby the investment made by the third respondent to the tune of Rs.1,01,47,800/- was cheated by the petitioners by way of not giving share to the third respondent.