COMMON ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

These two petitions arise out of the very same F.I.R., viz., Crime No.1 of 2025 dated 05.11.2025 on the file of the Economic Offences Wing, Madurai, registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 506(1), 406, 420, 120-B IPC, Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1997, (hereinafter to be mentioned as “TNPID ACT”) and Sections 3, 4, 5, 21, 22 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, hereinafter to be mentioned as “BUDS Act, 2019”).

2. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19923 of 2025 is pressed substantially on the footing of a settlement/compromise between A8 (Muthukumaran) and the defacto complainant, coupled with deposit of monies.

3. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20655 of 2025 is pressed by A6 and A7 (Directors of Neomax Group) mainly on the contention that the impugned F.I.R., insofar as they are concerned, is impermissible as a “second F.I.R.” / a prohibited fragmentation of the same transaction, hit by the law in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, 2001 (6) SCC 181 and that no independent material is disclosed against them qua the “Premium Villa Plot” transaction.

4. Since the issues overlap, both petitions are disposed of by this common order.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The prosecution case, as reflected in the complaint, F.I.R. and counter, is that the defacto complainant and her husband had earlier investments in sister concerns of Neomax, and that the accused persons induced her not to pursue complaints, promised return of money, and thereafter induced her to pay Rs.30,00,000/- in April 2025 into accounts styled as “Premium Villa Plot”, promising a doubled return, allotment of land, and return of earlier investments.

6. It is alleged that the accused refused to register the property or return the money and threatened/abused her. The counter further asserts that the investigation has indicated a broader pattern, with multiple persons allegedly cheated, and suspicious bank transactions requiring forensic and financial trail analysis.

Submissions on behalf of Accused No.8:

7. The learned counsel appearing for Accused No.8 would submit that the entire prosecution case, when stripped of embellishments, is fundamentally simple. The de facto complainant, Sangeetha, had allegedly paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs to Accused No.8 for the purchase of a plot in a real estate project run under the name “Premium Villa Plots.” It is alleged that the petitioner failed either to execute the sale deed or to refund the amount within the expected time, and on that basis FIR No.1 of 2025 has been registered invoking Sections 406 and 420 IPC along with provisions under the TNPID Act.

8. The learned counsel would emphasize that this is, at best, a commercial real estate dispute arising from delay in performance of a sale transaction. There was no dishonest intention at inception. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry and had clearly stated that he was willing either to execute the sale deed or to refund the amount, subject to reasonable time. Thus, the essential ingredients of cheating, namely deception at the inception and dishonest inducement are absent.

9. The learned counsel for Accused No.8 would submit that at the time of remand, a sum of Rs.21 lakhs was deposited. Thereafter, pursuant to the bail order passed by the TNPID Court, an additional Rs.25 lakhs was deposited. In total, Rs.46 lakhs stands deposited before the competent Court.

10. The de facto complainant has now appeared in person before this Court and has filed a joint compromise memo. She has categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the complaint and seeks permission to withdraw the amount deposited. It is contended that when the aggrieved party herself states that the dispute stands settled and that she has no grievance, continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose.

11. Reliance is placed on the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 10 SCC 303 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court recogn