The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure under Sections 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the offense of alleged false evidence is mandatory, and not all contradictory statements in evidence amount to perjury. The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood and the exercise of judicial discretion in ordering prosecution.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in both the Crl.O.Ps.: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records in C.C.No.831 of 2021, pending on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and quash the same.)

Common Order

1. The petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.831 of 2021 for offences under Sections 120-B and 193 I.P.C., have filed the Quash Petitions.

2.The gist of the case is that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11729 of 2021/second accused and four others are owners of the property measuring a total extent of 44,381 sq.ft. situated in Survey Nos.714/4, 714/5, 714/6 and 714/7, at Seshadripuram, 1st Main Road, Ambedkar Nagar, Velachery. Chennai. They appointed the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11842 of 2021/A1, who is the husband of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11729 of 2021/A2, and one Jaikumar, son of the representative of the respondent Corporation as Power Agents inter alia to develop the property by a registered Power of Attorney, dated 19.06.2014. In the meanwhile, one M/s.Anmol Housing Corporation, who owned the adjacent land, represented by the first accused, developed the property, partly sold few flats in the said property. They could not make further constructions, sell the remaining undivided share in the land. Thus, they had left with undivided share of 31163 sq.ft. to be developed.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to as in the complaint.

4.The said M/s.Anmol Housing Corporation, represented by A1, earlier developed the property belonging to it by entering into a Project Management Consultant Agreement with one M/s.CICC (Chennai Integrated Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.), managed by its Managing Director, one Rajendran and with one of its Directors Jaikumar, son of the complainant, on 04.03.2011. The second accused along with co-owners, entered into a separate development agreement with CICC on 04.03.2011. Both the Project Management Consultant Agreement and the Joint Development Agreement were cancelled on 24.01.2016 by way of a Cancellation Deed. As per the Cancellation Deed, the second accused and co-owners were to pay Rs.2,00,00,000/- to CICC. The said amount was not paid to CICC on date of cancellation and it was mutually agreed between the parties that Rs.2 Crores shall be transferred to said S.Jaikumar. Thus, the second accused along with four other owners and M/s.Anmol Housing Corporation, represented by A1, its Managing Director, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding [MoU] on 06.02.2016 with the complainant Firm for development of the aforesaid two properties i.e., the property belonging to the second accused and four others and the undivided share of M/s.Anmol Housing Corporation of A1, which is the neighboring property.

5. The complainant had to pay advance to the accused as per MoU. Out of the advance amount payable by the complainant, a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by way of credit adjustment, from the amount payable by the second accused and co-owners to Jaikumar. The first accused issued a receipt dated 10.02.2016, acknowledging the receipt of the advance payment. While so, the first accused, on behalf of his Principals (A2) and M/s.Anmol Housing Corporation, unilaterally cancelled the MoU without any justifiable reasons, by letter dated 27.10.2016. The second accused and co-owners also followed it up by revoking the Power of Attorney, dated 19.06.2014, in favour of first accused and Jaikumar, by Deed of Revocation, dated 12.12.2016.

6. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant filed applications in O.A.Nos.1030 and 1031 of 2016 before this Court for injunction, restraining the second accused, co-owners and M/s.Anmol Housing Corporation from disturbing their peaceful possession. This Court, by order dated 27.03.2017, granted an order of injunction. The complainant also filed O.P.No.605 of 2017 for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of MoU, dated 06.02.2016. The second accused and co-owners and M/s.Anmol Housing Corpor