COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the accused to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.1 of 2021 on the file of the second respondent.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons fraudulently transferred the shares belonging to the family. A.1 to A.4 are the grandsons of AVM.Marimuthu Nadar through his son M.Velayutham and they owned and running jewelry business in the name and style of AVM Marimuthu Nadar and Sons Private Limited (Jewelrs) and AVM Associates Private Limited (Hospital), M.Edison & Co Private Limited (AVM Sovereign oil Mill) and MV.Subramaninan & brothers – Firm (Marriage Hall). The said late AVM.Marimuthu Nadar from his first marriage had one son namely Velayutham, in which, the petitioners 1 to 4 were born and the said AVM.Marimuthu Nadar, after the demise of his first wife, had married one Gandhimathiyammal and through the said Gandhimathiyammal, they had one son, namely M.Edison and he had a son, namely M.E.Muthukumar and he had two sons, namely Karthick Marimuthu and Rishikesh Marimuthu. The said Rishikesh Marimuthu had lodged the complaint herein.

have to be devolved equally among the grandsons. But, such shares were not allotted to his father Muthukumar, who is one of the grandsons. The grandfather of the defacto complainant M.Edison purchased 2000 shares from the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank and the same was transferred to the defacto complainant's father M.E.Muthukumar in the year 2003. He transferred 1600 shares each to Accused Nos.1 to 4 without any consideration. They had fraudulently obtained the shares and the value will be Rs.115,00,00,000/-. On the said complaint, the second respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.1 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 409, 420 of I.P.C r/w Section 10(b) of I.P.C.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5.On a perusal of the entire records revealed that during the life time of AVM.Marimuthu Nadar, he had executed a Will, dated 20.11.1959 regarding the disposition of the properties and the business among the sons and grandsons of AVM.Marimuthu Nadar. The said AVM.Marimuthu Nadar died on 01.04.1964. After his demise, the Firm called M/s.M.V.Subramanian and Brothers was constituted on 02.03.2009 by its partners namely A.1 to A.8 and the father of the defacto complainant. While being so, the father of the defacto complainant was removed from the above partnership Firm by the majority of the partnership dated 18.03.2015 which came into effect from 01.04.2014. Thereafter, the reconstituted partnership deed was entered on 20.08.2015 between A.1 to A.8 as partners. The father of the defacto complainant was expelled from the above Firm during his life time and the same was not objected by him during his life time. Further, the capital amount of the defacto complainant's father is very much available and they are also ready and willing to settle the amount as per the books of accounts and other necessary and other relevant documents. As per the partnership deed, dated 02.03.2009, if he has any grievance, the remedy to redress before the Arbitration proceedings or through the process of law. However, the second respondent or his father failed to do so. After the demise of his father, the defacto complainant now lodged the complaint thereby had given criminal colour to the issue of civil in nature.

6.As per the allegation, the Firm called M.V.Subramaniam and Brothers said to have been constituted during the year 1985, whereas, there are no document to show that such a Firm was constituted in the year 1985. It was constituted only on 02.03.2009 and the Income Tax Returns were submitted for the said Firm only from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. In fact, Pan Card was obtained during the year 2009 and as such, there is no question of f