2008(8) Supreme 811
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
M. Viswanathan — Appellant
versus
M/s. S.K. Tiles & Potteries P. Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2008
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1707 of 2006)
Decided on : 25-11-2008
(2005)1 SCC 122; AIR 1960 SC 866; 1992 Supp (1) 335; (1992)4 SCC 305; AIR 1964 SC 1; 1990 Supp SCC 686; AIR 1996 SC 309; (1995)6 SCC 194; AIR 1999 SC 1044; (1996)7 SCC 705; (1997)2 SCC 397; AIR 1996 SC 2983; (1999)3 SCC 259 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1.The first accused is M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., the second accused is A.R. Santhanakrishnan, Director of the first accused-company, the third accused is Mrs. Radhika Santhanakrishnan, yet another Director of the first accused- company and the - fourth accused is Chandrasekaran, working as Commercial Manager of M/s. Sai Sri Krishna Properties and Facilitators (P) Ltd.
2. M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., the owner of property to an extent of 34.04 acres in Thirumangalam Village, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai, entered into a MoU with the complainant on 2.7.2001, entrusting the land for development with the complainant.
3.The complainant started developing the properties through his partnership firm ‘M/s. Sai Sri Krishna Properties’ which was converted to a private limited company, in which the complainant was the Managing Director and the third accused was the Director.
4.The first accused and the complainant entered into an agreement by which the newly floated ‘M/s. Sai Sri Krishna Properties’ was appointed as a Facilitator by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for developing the properties after obtaining approval from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (C.M.D.A.).
5. Pursuant to the above agreements, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell and an agreement to construct with 146 purchasers and received a sum of Rs.2,54,67,091/- as sale advance. The complainant had invested a total sum of Rs.3 crores approximately including the said sum of Rs.2,54,67,091/- for the purpose of developing the project and maintaining the property. As the necessary clearances could not be obtained, the advance money was to be refunded. The complainant had returned a sum of Rs.21,71,360/- to 47 allottees out of the 146 allottees and a sum of Rs.2,29,71,775/- has to be refunded by the complainant to the remaining 99 allottees.
6.The purchasers informed the complainant that the agreement between the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant’s private limited company had been terminated by mutual consent. The complainant never entered into any mutual agreement for termination of the aforesaid agreements. The complainant alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 have fabricated a termination agreement as if it had been signed by the complainant. On complainant’s enquiry, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were threatening to kill him.
7. The prosecution was quashed holding that the grievance, if any, of the complainant will have to be redressed through the Civil Forum or the Company Law Board. He cannot prosecute the respondents on the basis of bald allegation without any basis.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned judgment cannot be maintained.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Cr.P.C.’). Prayer in the petition was to call for the records in Crime No.576 of 2005 in the file of the Inspector of Police Team IV, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, and to quash the same. The respondents 1 to 4 were booked for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 468, 471, 420, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) based on the reference made by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, on the complaint presented by the present appellant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
3.In the complaint essentially it was stated as follows :
“3.The first accused is M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., the second accused is A.R. Santhanakrishnan, Director of the first accused-company, the third accused is Mrs. Radhika Santhanakrishnan, yet another Director of the first accused-company and the - fourth accused is Chandrasekaran, working as Commercial Manager of M/s. Sai Sri Krishna Properties and Facilitators (P) Ltd.
4.M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., is the owner of property to an extent of 34.04 acres in Thirumangalam Village, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai. The first accused-company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the complainant on 2.7.2001, as per which the first accused-company entrusted the land for development with the complainant. The complainant started developing the properties through his partnership firm ‘M/s. Sai Sri Krishna Properties’. ‘M/s. Sai Sri Krishna Properties’ was converted to a private limited company, in which the complainant was the Managing Director and the third accused was the Director. An agreement was entered into between the said ‘M/s. Sai Sri Krishna Properties’ and ‘Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.’ on 24.6.2002. The newly floated ‘M/s. Sai Sri Krishna Properties’ was appointed as a Facilitator by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for developing the properties after obtaining approval from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (C.M.D.A.). Since the accused Nos.1 to 3 were not in a position to obtain approval from C.M.D.A., the project could not be completed at the earliest.
5.Pursuant to the, above agreements, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell and an agreement to construct with 146 purchasers and received a sum of Rs.2,54,67,091/- as sale advance. The complainant had invested a total sum of Rs.3 crores approximately including the said sum of Rs.2,54,67,091/- for the purpose of developing the project and maintaining the property. The complainant had returned a sum of Rs.21,71,360/- to 47 allottees out of the 146 allottees. A sum of Rs.2,29,71,775/- has to be refunded by the complainant to the remaining 99 allottees. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are also negotiating with the allottees for refunding the advance sale consideration received from them. The purchasers informed the complainant that the agreement between the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant’s private limited company had been terminated by mutual consent. The complainant was shocked to see that the records and the accounts relating to the said private limited company were found missing at its office. The third accused had illegally taken away all the records and accounts relating to the said private limited company, including the originals of the aforesaid two agreements dated 24.6.2002. Refunds have also been made to few of the purchasers with a mala fide intention of cheating the complainant. The complainant never entered into any mutual agreement for termination of the aforesaid agreements. The accused Nos.1 to 3 have fabricated a termination agreement as if it had been signed by the complainant. On complainant’s enquiry, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are threatening
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
State of Kerala v. O. C. Kuttan
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque
R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar
State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.