P K MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is arrayed as A.5 in Cr.No.1 of 2018 registered by the respondent police for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, namely, K.S.Jagannathan, who is also the intervenor herein.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant/intervenor is the owner of the property admeasuring an extent of 8.16 acres comprised in S.F.No.867/2, Athiyamankottai village, Dharmapuri District and the said property was owned by his father-in-law, namely, T.S.Srinivasan. The father-in-law of the defacto complainant, namely, T.S.Srinivasan, died leaving behind his mother, namely, T.S.Varadhambal and she executed a registered sale deed dated 08.07.2008 in favour of the defacto complainant.

(3.) It is the specific case of the defacto complainant/intervenor that one R.Rajendran/A.2 and Nagaraj/A.1 connived and colluded for the purpose of grabbing the said property and with that criminal intention in mind, Nagaraj/A.1 had approached his Advocate, namely, P.V.Ravi/A.3. P.V.Ravi/A.3 used to appear for Nagaraj/A.1 for all civil and criminal cases and he along with Nagaraj/A.1 and R.Rajendran/A.2 had entered into criminal conspiracy and instituted an arbitral proceedings in AR.O.P.No.36 of 2014. R.Rajendran/A.2 is the petitioner therein and Nagaraj/A.1 is the respondent therein. It is the case of the Rajendran/A.2, in the said arbitral proceedings that the Nagaraj/A.1/respondent therein for meeting up the family expenses and for improving his land, had mortgaged the landed property admeasuring to an extent of 3.30.5 Hectares in S.Nos.867/2 and 867/2B at Adhiyamankottai Revenue Village, along with thatched sheds and 4 bore wells and electricity service connection and two tanks and one more electricity service connection and pump set and got a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) and subsequently, the loan agreement was renewed, wherein the respondent therein, namely, Nagaraj/A.1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,36,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Thirty Six Thousand only) to Rajendran/A.2 and the said loan renewal agreement came into being on 03.12.2010. The said agreement also contains an arbitration clause and since Nagaraj/A.1 did not come forward to clear the dues, arbitral proceedings were initiated, wherein K.Rajaram - Advocate, had acted as an Arbitrator. The respondent therein, namely, Nagaraj/A.1 remained exparte and final arbitral award came to be passed on 31.10.2014 and in order to execute the said award, the services of the petitioner herein/A.5 were utilised for filing R.E.P.No.36 of 2016 in AR.O.P.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri and collusively, the respondent therein/judgment debtor remained exparte and abusing the process of Court, a registered sale deed was also executed on 02.05.2017 in favour of Rajendran/A.2.