The case highlighted the importance of contractual obligations and the lack of dishonest intention to deceive as essential for an offence under Section 420 IPC. It emphasized the need to seek civil remedies for matters pertaining to contractual obligations.

The petitioners are the Accused No.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Crime No.308 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Team-I, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 and they have come forward with these petitions to quash the said complaint against them.

2. The allegations in the complaint are:-Accused No.1 is the Leasing Finance Limited, Mylapore, Chennai and its branch office situated at Mysore represented by its Manager and Authorized Signatory Mr.Kuldeep Jain. Accused No.2 and 3 are the Directors of the first Accused Company.

3. The complainant approached the Accused No.1 at their Chennai office for a financial assistance/management assistance of Rs.13,92,00,000/-. The accused agreed to deposit the said sum and as such Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.01.2004 was entered into between the accused and the complainant. As per Clause 8(a) of the MOU, the complainant was required to place the aforesaid sanctioned loan in a fixed deposit account either in London or Singapore to the entire satisfaction of the accused and the accused or its nominee shall be the sole signatory for such money. As per clause 8(b) of the said MOU at the instance of the complainant, the Accused No.1 has incorporated a company in United Kingdom namely Perk-Inn International Limited. It was agreed to open a current account of the Complainant company in a bank in United Kingdom and the Accused No.1 agreed to transfer the money into the complainant company's account in India and then to the said account in UK. The following are the main salient features

4. Accused No.2 represents the Accused No.1 company. The Accused Nos. 3 to 7 were the nominees of the Accused No.1 and were appointed as Directors in terms of the aforesaid MOU. Accused No.7 and 8 have been nominated by the Accused No.1 as Directors in the 100% subsidiary company of the complainant company viz., Perk Inn International Limited, at United Kingdom.

5. As per Clause 10(b) of the MOU, the accused or its nominee will have full control over the operations of the said account in London and also in the bank for placing deposits and Mr.Karunakaran or the confirming party under the aforesaid MOU or any other person whomsoever were to have no right/say or control whatsoever over the said money/deposit.

6. As per the Clause 4(a) of the MOU, in case the complainant failed to obtain the foreign loan as he was expecting within 60 days from the date of depositing the money in the complainants company account in India, the period of financial assistance were to automatically get reduced to 60 days.

7. As per Clause Nos. 5 and 6 of the MOU the complainant paid to the accused a nonrefundable sum of Rs.35,72,000/-at the time of signing the agreement and Rs.9,28,000/-towards documentation charges, which amounts have been acknowledged in the said MOU by the Accused No.1.

8. As per Clause 20 of the MOU the accused should get back Rs.13,92,00,000/-along with service charges of Rs.3,80,96,000/- amounting to Rs.17,72,96,000/- from the complainant. In case the complainant gets the first instalment of foreign fund, the total amount payable by the complainant to the Accused No.1 was agreed at Rs.22,27,20,000/-

9. As per Clause Nos. 12(i), (ii) and (iii) of the MOU the complainant was to hand over the original title deeds of its various immovable properties to the accused. Accordingly, the complainant handed over to the Authorized Signatory of the Accused No.1 company the following documents at Chennai office on 03.02.2004 and it was acknowledged by them.

1. Xerox copies of passport of Mr.K.Karunakaran

2. Original land documents of land situated at Electronics City Phase II extent 11.37 acres along with encumbrance certificate and revised possession certificate (lease cum sale agreement and supplementary lease cum sale agreement).

3. Original land document of land situated at Electronics City Phase II extent of 5.07 acres along with encumbrance certificate and revised possession certificate (le