JUDGMENT :

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C. No. 539 of 2013 pending on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A1 and A2 in C.C. No. 539 of 2013 now pending on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to quash the Calendar Case.

2. It must be kept in mind that by order dated 18.03.2015 in Crl. R.C. No. 89 of 2015 and Crl. O.P. No. 1896 of 2015, the Calendar Case has been quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court as against A3 and A4.

3. The 1st petitioner is a limited company involved in real estate property development and the 2nd petitioner is a promoter of the said company. They had entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 17.12.2004 with the 1st respondent/defacto complainant to develop the property belonging to the 1st respondent and his two brothers at Door No. 165, St. Mary’s Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600018. The two brothers incidentally not complainants in the calender case. Supplemental Agreements had also been entered into on 29.03.2006 and 22.02.2007. Two Powers of Attorney were also executed in favour of the 1st petitioner on 29.03.2006 to carry out construction and to deal with 50% undivided share in the land. A sum of Rs. 6.82 Crores had been paid by the petitioners as refundable security deposit. In the Joint Venture Agreement, it had been provided that the petitioners can mortgage 50% share of the proposed building and undivided share of the land and utilize the money for the purpose of development of the property. Discharge of the mortgage was the sole responsibility of the petitioners herein. The petitioners claimed that they had also constructed a Software Technology Part measuring 1.86 Lakh sq. ft. in the said property. The building was completed on 20.10.2008 and completion certificate also been issued by the CMDA. However, differences arose between the petitioners on the one hand and the 1st respondent/his brothers on the other hand. Arbitration Proceedings were initiated. A suit had also been filed.

4. The 1st respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others on 16.02.2009 alleging commission of various offences. After investigation, action was dropped. The 1st respondent lodged a private complaint which was taken cognizance as C.C. No. 9652 of 2009 by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, accusing the petitioners among others of having committed offences under Sections 405, 409, 415, 418, 420 and 423 of IPC. That Calendar Case was quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 25.07.2012 in Crl. O.P. No. 12771 of 2009. An appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 21.02.2013. The 1st respondent filed another private complaint which was taken cognizance as C.C. No. 2496 of 2013 alleging that the petitioners among others had committed offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120(b) IPC. The petitioners filed Crl. O.P. No. 17044 of 2013 and the same was allowed by order dated 23.11.2018 by a learned Single Judge of this Court and in the result C.C. No. 2496 of 2013 was also quashed.

5. The petitioners herein had mortgaged 50% of the undivided share of land and the building there on with Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited. Alleging that the petitioners had mortgaged the entire property and had obtained a sum more than Rs. 7.5 Crores which was the limit agreed between the parties that could be availed as loan on a mortgage and therefore claiming that the petitioners herein and the Regional Manager of Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited and the said company had committed offences under Sections 406, 418, 420 IPC read with 120(b) IPC, the 1st respondent had filed another private complaint which was taken cognizance by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet as C.C. No. 539 of