2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 24742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 07.09.2022 Date of Verdict : 23.09.2022 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.12985 & 12986 of 2020 Crl.M.P.Nos.5061 & 5062 of 2020 and 1455 & 1456 of 2021 S.Jagathrakshakan ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.
Vs.
1. The State by The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarters, Chennai.
(Crime Nos.02 & 03/2016)
2. Q.Dawson Power Agent of George Joseph Chambers (Late)
3. Saroja Chambers 4. David Chambers 5. Robin Chambers
6. Rakshna Jai Balaji
7. Sylvia Chambers
8. Leena Hiba Respondents 3 to 8 rep. by their Power of Attorney Agent S.Ravi Kumar Alias Ravi Respondents 3 to 8 were impleaded as per the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by this Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.5024 & 5027 of 2022 ... Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime Nos.2 & 3 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarter, Chennai, the first respondent herein and quash the same.
In both Crl.O.Ps.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manishankar, Senior Counsel For Mr.N.Senthilkumar For Respondents For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel For Mr.E.J.Ayyappan For R3 to R8 : Mr.M.Vignesh
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime Nos.2 & 3 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police registered for the offences under Sections Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, and under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 & 120B of IPC respectively, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the power agent of one George Joseph Chambers, who is the only legal heir of late George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers. The said George Alexander Chambers purchased 5000 equity shares and 2000 preferential shares in the name of M/s. Chrome Leather Company and appointed three trustees viz., Ida L Chambers, H.M.Small and Vellore Parthasarathy Jeganathan Mudaliar. Among those shares 4997 shares were held by the trustees and the trustees executed a sale deed in favour of M/s. Chrome Leather Company and Ida L Chambers came into possession of the properties in her individual capacity and later compromise decree was passed on 19.02.1965 in C.S.Nos. 46 of 1963 & 2 of 1964.
3. Thereafter, the properties came into the possession of Ida L Chambers and she died on 13.08.1968, leaving behind the principal of the defacto complainant as her sole legal heir. Since the principal of the defacto complainant was travelling on the high seas, he was not able to concentrate upon the properties. While being so, the defacto complainant collected details and came to know that the equity shares and preferential shares were transferred in the name of A.Nagappa Chettiar and he was representing M/s. Chrome Leather Company as Managing Director. After demise of Ida L Chambers, the said A.Nagappa Chettiar had deposited the bogus share certificates in the Central Bank of India to obtain loans. The said A.Nagappa Cheittiar had shown himself as Managing Director of M/s. Chrome Leather Company as early as on 1944, but he had come to picture only after the demise of Ida L Chambers.
4. Thereafter the said A.Nagappa Chettiar mortgaged the properties belonging to M/s. Chrome Leather Company and also the private properties of George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers. The bank authorities of Central Bank of India without following the rules and regulations, sanctioned the loan and thereafter filed a suit in O.S.No.314 of 1980 for declaration and bringing the properties for public auction. The petitioner herein had purchased the shares in collusion with A.Nagappa Chettiar knowing that the shares were fabricated. The bank authorities without following the legal procedures and the SARFAESI Act had transferred the shares in favour of the petitioner herein.
Thereafter most of the properties were unlawfully and illegally meddled by the petitioner herein and others. They manipulated the revenue records and created false documents by forging the signature of the original owner and also threatened the second respondent. Hence, the cases in Crime Nos.304 & 305 of 2007 were registered by the City Crime Branch X, Thousand Lights, Chennai, on 20.06.2007.
5. After completion of investigation, the Crime Branch Police had filed final reports by concluding that the cases were “Mistake of Facts” before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. The second respondent had also filed protest petitions before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, in C.M.P.Nos.4147 & 4148 of 2007 and the same were dismissed on 23.04.2009 by accepting the final reports filed as mistake of fact. Thereafter, based on the suo-muto order passed by the Additional Director General of Police, vide R.C.No.C6/8313/2012, the above cases were taken up for further investigation and the first respondent herein had filed petitions for further investigation in Crl.M.P.Nos.3915 & 3914 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu, and the same were also dismissed on 26.02.2014. As against the said order, the first respondent had filed revision petitions in Crl.R.C.Nos.5 & 4 of 2014 be