MOOSA AHMED Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 755 of 2008 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team No. IV, Egmore, Chennai-8, towards quashing thereof.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he, as a partner of a firm known as T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co., which held property at No. 33(N.P.) and 34(N.P.), Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai was approached by the de facto complainant towards purchase thereof. The petitioner had informed the de facto complainant of the original title deeds being in the custody of Canara Bank and of consent to sell the property to the de facto complainant towards settling the dues with such Bank. A sale agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the de facto complainant on 9.12.2007 and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid by the de facto complainant at that stage.

(3.) The Complaint in the case informs that, for sale of the said property a consideration of Rs. 22,50,00,000/- was arrived at and that it was represented by the accused/petitioner herein that the original title deeds pertaining to the above mentioned property were with his brother, who was abroad at that time and that since he knew the accused in the filed of business for many years, the de facto complainant trusted and believed him, entered into an agreement for sale on 9.12.2007 and a further supplementary agreement on 17.1.2008 and that a sum of Rs. 6,10,00,000/- has been paid to the accused/petitioner herein. When asked in February 2008 to produce the original title deeds, the accused/petitioner herein had informed that his brother was still abroad and demanded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. It was only in March 2008 that the complainant learnt that the property had been mortgaged with Canara Bank by T.S. Hajee Moosa&Co., and the banker had initiated proceedings against them before the DRT at Chennai. This came to his knowledge only when the Bank officials of Canara Bank visited the property. Stating that the accused/petitioner herein was refusing to return back the money and alleging the deceptive intention on the part of the accused since the inception of the transaction and a threat meted out by the accused, in the Complaint complains of offence under Sections 406 read with 420,1.P.C. having been committed by the accused.