Prima facie evidence of active participation in a criminal conspiracy is sufficient to warrant a trial, and may not fall under the exceptions to quash the charge sheet without trial.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in respect of the C.C.No.220 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in respect of the C.C.No.220 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem and quash the same.

2. In C.C.No.220 of 2018, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No:VI, Salem, the petitioner herein is arrayed as the 5th accused.

3. The gist of the final report in C.C.No.220 of 2018 against the petitioner and 4 others for offences under Section 120(B), 465 , 468, 420 and 506(i) IPC is that, Glide Gregory (A-1) and his son Glint (A-2) had 3 acres of land in Vellalapatti Village, near Omalur bearing S.Nos.44/2 and 50/3. They plotted the property and sold it to 20 persons prior to 2009. While so, they along with the real estate brokers Rajarathinam (A-3), Kandasamy (A-4) and Paul Jayaseelan (A-5), petitioner herein conspired to cheat the defacto complainant and pursuant to the said conspiracy, A-3 to A-5 enticed the defacto complainant that 3 acres of land owned by A-1 and A-2 is available for very cheap price and they can arrange for its purchase.

4. Believing the words of A-3 to A-5, the defacto complainant Mr.P.Ramachandran and his friend K.R.Balachandran went to Vellalapatti Village and inspected the property. A-3 to A-5 took them to A-1 and A-2 and negotiated with A-1 and A-2. They agreed to buy the land for a consideration of Rs.15 lakhs and on 03/03/2009 paid Rs.6,50,000/- as advance to A-1 and A-2 and entered into an agreement reducing the terms of the agreement in writing. In the said agreement, A-1 and A-2 as vendors and the defacto complainant (P.Ramachandran) and Usha Rani, W/o K.R.Balachandran as buyers affixed their signatures. A-3 to A-5 affixed their signatures as witnesses to the agreement. A-3 and A-4 received Rs.60,000/- as brokerage.

5. Knowing well that A-1 and A-2 were not the owners of the property on the date of agreement, the accused persons received Rs.6,50,000/- as part sale consideration and Rs.60,000/- as broker commission. With an intention to cheat, a false document prepared by A-5 in connivance with other accused, to make the defacto complainant believe that A-1 and A-2 are still the owners of the property and the title deed is in Punjab National Bank for the Small Industries loan availed and induced him to part away Rs.6,50,000/- towards part sale consideration and Rs.60,000/- as brokerage.

6. From the records, it appears that the defacto complainant approached the High Court for a direction to the respondent police to register his complaint alleging that his complaint dated 13/10/2012 not taken up for investigation. As directed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7243/2013 vide order dated 24/09/2013, the respondent police has registered First Information Report in Crime No.8/2014 and on completion of investigation, they filed the final report and the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, Salem in C.C.No.220/2018.

7. Attributing this petitioner conspired with other accused, prepared the sale agreement containing false claim of title over the property and signed in it as one of the witnesses, despite knowing that the executants A-1 and A-2 are not the owners of the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement. Further, it is attributed that due to his inducement the defacto complainant parted away Rs.6,50,000/-. When after knowing that A-1 and A-2 have already sold the property to various persons as housing plots and the accused persons have cheated him, the defacto complainant demanded his money, then the petitioner and others threatened him with dire consequence.

8. The above said final report as against the petitioner herein (5th accused) is sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner is a lawyer by profession and he prepared the sale agreement in the course