ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Special Court, TNPID Act, Madurai, in Crime No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing – II, Dindigul as against the petitioner.

2.The case of the prosecution is that Accused Nos.1 to 4 were running a Finance Company in the name and style of “Ravi & Co. Bankers” as a partnership business. They collected deposits from the general public by promising to repay with interest and committed default in repayment of deposits. On the complaint, the F.I.R has been registered in Crime No.1 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 406, 418, 420, 423 and 120(b) of I.P.C on the file of the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing – II, Dindigul. In pursuant to the registration of F.I.R, the Government attached the leasehold premises of the petitioner/5th accused, namely “Hotel Swagath”, which was originally belonged to Accused Nos.1 to 4, by G.O.Ms.No.1326, Home (Courts-2A) Department, dated 18.12.2000 by way of interim attachment under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1987 (in short hereinafter referred to as “TNPID Act”). In the meanwhile, Accused Nos.1 to 4 filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5342 of 2001 before this Court challenging the interim attachment and it was disposed of by the Principal Bench of this Court on 02.07.2001 on condition to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month by Accused Nos.1 to 4, till further orders passed by the Special Court. The interim attachment of the property was made absolute, by an order, dated 19.05.2003 by the Special Court under the TNPID Act, Madurai. While being so, Accused Nos.1 to 4 approached the petitioner/Accused No.5 lessee with a proposal for sale of the said property in order to settle their dues. Accordingly, they sold out the hotel premises to the petitioner/Accused No.5 by the registered sale deed, dated 11.08.2003 for the sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. Hence, the District Revenue Officer preferred a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.1 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 406, 418, 420, 423 and 120(b) of I.P.C, in which, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.5. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed the final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Special Court for TNPID Cases, Madurai.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, being a lessee, had absolutely no knowledge about the attachment against the subject property. From the total consideration, a sum of Rs.45,50,323/- has to be settled by the petitioner in respect of the claim of 70 private money lenders. The balance sale consideration was duly received by Accused Nos.1 to 4 and executed sale deed, dated 11.08.2003. Only thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the attachment of the property and the petitioner was directed by the competent authority, namely the District Revenue Officer, to continue to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month till March 2005 to the credit of the original case of depositors pending in C.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court, TNPID Act, Madurai. So far, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.27,50,000/-. The present complaint is registered for the allegation that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner during attachment with dishonest intention to defraud the depositors by Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the registering authority having knowledge about service of notice of attachment have involved in the sale of the subject property and the attachment. In pursuant to the registration of F.I.R, the subject premises was seized from the possession of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner had settled the dues of the depositors and sought for handing over the possession. During enquiry, the petitioner made settlement directly with the de