Insufficient evidence against accused A-4 and A-5 led to quashing of the final report under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing that mere association with the prime accused does not establish culpability.

ORDER :

1. The above two Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the final report taken on file by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai in C.C. No. 6886/2023.

2. These two petitioners along with three other accused (A1 to A3) facing trial for conspiracy, impersonization, forgery and fabrication of records to cheat the defacto complainant A.G.Sivaraman to a tune of Rs.1,26,00,000/-. The charges are for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 & 120(b) IPC altered into Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120(b) IPC r/w 34 of IPC.

3. The sum and substance of the final report:

Manickavel (A-1) is an Advocate by profession. His client Anjana Rani had a share in the propertry bearing Door No: 35/2 Venkataraman Street, Perambur, Chennai, measuring about 8809 sqft. A-1 Posing as the agreement holder with Anjana Rani for sale of the said property, during the month of January 2016 promised to offer that property for a sale consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/- (Rupees three crores twenty five lakhs only) to the defacto complainant and received advance of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only). He also executed a sale agreement. To impress the complainant an unregistered notarised power of attorney deed executed by Anajana Rani in favour of his Junior Advocate Mr. S. Rajeshkumar (A-2) was shown to the complainant and Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees fourty lakhs only) been received from the complainant. The earlier sale agreement by A-1 was altered and new sale agreement by Rajeshkumar (A-2) as Power of Attorney of Anjana Rani was executed. On various occasions totally, a sum of Rs.1,68,00,000/- (Rupees one crore sixty eight lakhs only) was received by A-1 without introducing the title holder Anjana Rani to the complainant. Suspecting foul game, when the complainant insisted to meet Anjana Rani, A-1 tells the complainant that if he had confidence in him, pay the balance amount or else get back the money advanced. Then, A-1 repaid only Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees fourty lakhs only)to the complainant and balance amount remains unpaid.

4. On verification, the complainant came to know that in the notarised unregistered power of attorney in the name of Anjana Rani in favour of Rajeshkumar (A-2), the executant Anjana Rani had not signed, but her signature been forged by A. Ramakrishnan (A-3) another Junior Advocate of A-1. On further verification, it was found that, on 14/07/2016 Anjana Rani had settled the said property to her legal heirs. The settlement deed been drafted by Ralph V. Manoharan (A-4- the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 4252 of 2024) another Junior Advocate of A-1, on the advice of A-1. In the settlement deed, Rajeshkumar (A-2) had signed as witness. When the complainant went to the office of A-1 and demanded money back, A-1 along with his associates Rajeshkumar (A-2), Ramakrishnan (A-3), Ralf V. Manoharan (A-4) and Sankar (A-5, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 4743/2024) refused to repay the balance amount and they jointly gave life threat to him.

5. Submission on behalf of the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 4252/2024 - Ralf V. Manoharan (A-4) He got enrolled as an Advocate on 21/03/2007 and joined as Junior in the office of A-1. He is not aware of the property dealing between A-1 and the complainant. He affixed his signature as scribe to the settlement deed dated 14/07/2016 registered as document No: 3515/2016 executed by Anjana Rani in favour of her sons and daughter. Nothing illegal in his act of assisting the client to prepare the settlement deed. He was not part of any property dealing between A-1 and the complainant. No document created by him against the interest of Anjana Rani or the defacto complainant. Civil dispute between A-1 and the complainant been given a criminal colour, obviously to pressurise this petitioner. The ingredients for offences under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC are not made out againt this petitioner.

6. Submission