P.N. PRAKASH, J.

1. Two FIRs, viz., the FIR in Cr. No.44 of 2017 and the FIR in Cr. No.88 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police are sought to be quashed in this batch of 9 Criminal Original Petitions.

2. In view of inter-connectivity of the issue involved and also the fact that the de facto complainant and the accused 1 to 4 in both the FIRs are one and the same, these 9 Criminal Original Petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

3. For the purpose of clarity and better understanding, this Court thinks it fit to deal with the issue at hand FIR-wise and accordingly, proceeds further.

4. While the four petitions being Crl.O.P. Nos.16962 to 16965 of 2018 have been preferred seeking quashment of the FIR in Cr. No.44 of 2017, the remaining five petitions being Crl.O.P. Nos.26303 to 26306 of 2017 and 25290 of 2017 have been preferred seeking quashment of the FIR in Cr. No.88 of 2017.

5. On the complaint lodged by Dr. Shanthi Anandakumar, the de facto complainant/second respondent, the first respondent police have registered a case in Cr. No.44 of 2017 on 20.06.2017 under Sections 120- B, 409,468,469,471 and 420 IPC against five accused, for quashing which, Crl.O.P. Nos.16962 to 16965 of 2018 have been preferred by A1 to A4.

6. At this juncture, it may be pertinent to state here that this Court, in Crl.O.P. No.16109 of 2017, vide order dated 08.11.2017, has quashed the prosecution in Cr. No.44 of 2017 as against Sitaram Nayak (A5), Manager, Indian Bank, Ram Nagar Branch and the challenge made there against by the de facto complaint before the Supreme Court, failed.

7. On the complaint lodged by Dr. Shanthi Anandakumar (de facto complainant/second respondent), the first respondent police have registered a case in Cr. No.88 of 2017 on 10.11.2017 under Sections 120- B and 420 IPC against 5 accused, for quashing which, Crl.O.P. Nos.26303 to 26306 of 2017 and 25290 of 2017 have been preferred by 5 accused.

8. Heard Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan, learned counsel on record for A1 to A4 in both the Crime Numbers, Mr. Sunder Mohan, learned counsel for A5 in Cr.No.88 of 2017, Mrs. M. Prabhavathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent State in all the cases, Mr.S.Shanmuga Velayutham, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S.P. Sudalaiyandi learned counsel on record for the de facto complainant and also Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan, learned counsel for the de facto complainant.

9. To appreciate the contentions raised at the Bar, it may be necessary to narrate the facts admitted by both sides.

9.1 Dr. Shanthi Anandakumar, the de facto complainant and her husband Dr. Anandakumar are dentists by profession and Ashok Kumar (A1) is the brother of Dr. Anandakumar and brother-in-law of the de facto complainant.

9.2 Ashok Kumar (A1), Narayanan (A2), Chockalingam (A3) and Karthikeyan (A4) started TIPSTECH Pvt. Ltd. (for short "TIPSTECH") and established TIPSTECH Global Institute and College in 361-1A3, Karuvaloor Road, M.G.C. Palayam, Coimbatore.

9.3 The de facto complainant purchased a land measuring 3.87 acres adjacent to the college run by A1 to A4 and it is her case that, in the year 2012, Ashok Kumar (A1) requested her to permit him to use her land also for the expansion of the college and for putting up a temporary structure thereon and she also obliged; Ashok Kumar (A1) assured her that he would purchase her land by paying 1 times of the prevailing market price; Ashok Kumar (A1) wanted to mortgage his property with Indian Bank, Ram Nagar Branch, for raising a loan and when he requested her to join the mortgage, she agreed and mortgaged her land also for raising the loan.

9.4 The de facto complainant has admitted in her complaint that when Ashok Kumar (A1) wanted to put up a temporary structure in her land and requested her to submit the necessary application to the Municipal Corporation, she acceded to his request and signed in the necessary f