COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.656 & 658 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate No.III, Vellore.

2. In both cases, the petitioners are accused in the complaints lodged by the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents in both the petitions filed complaints alleging that they are lessees of the immovable property situated at Block No.3, Revenue Ward No.1 of Vada Vellore Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, comprised in T.S.No.178 admeasuring to an extent of 1 acres 55 cents, T.S.No.175 admeasuring to an extent of 5 acres 21 cents, T.S.No.58, admeasuring to an extent of 1 acre 44 cents, T.S.No.172 admeasuring to an extent of 34 cents and T.S.No.173 admeasuring to an extent of 66 cents, in total 8 acres 11 cents, owned by one V.Sundararajan and his family members. They let out the said property in their favour by a Lease Deed dated 09.08.2010. The said property was let out for the purpose of running scooter stand or any other purpose as desired by them. They were put in possession and they are in possession till now. When the lease deed was subsisting, the lessor had intended to sell the property to an extent of 7 acres 10 cents out of 8 acres 11 cents to the respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2690 of 2019. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.30,88,50,000/-. They had entered into an agreement for sale on 18.10.2010. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.2 crores was paid as advance and the remaining sale consideration was payable as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale. In the agreement for sale itself, handing over of possession of the properties has been acknowledged by the lessor. After execution of the agreement for sale, the Government of Tamil Nadu had proposed to acquire the subject land for construction of bus stand. Therefore, none of the purchasers came forward to purchase the said land, as a result of which, he could not mobilise the funds. Therefore, they had mutually extended the time for performing the sale agreement.

3. In the meanwhile, there were family disputes among the family members of the vendor, in which one group of persons filed a partition suit in respect of the very same property in O.S.No.42 of 2007 and another group of persons also filed a suit for injunction not to deal with the property covered under the agreement for sale dated 18.10.2010 in O.S.No.272 of 2008. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject property. The respondents had spent huge money for issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 31.05.2012 to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject property. As per the Government Order, there will be no acquisition of the subject property. In the month of February 2014, one of the Ministers of Tamil Nadu introduced the second accused to the respondents as an investor, who has agreed to invest Rs.30 crores to conclude the sale agreement dated 18.10.2010. However, the second accused demanded twice the amount of investment i.e., 60 crores, which shall be payable only after selling the said property by the respondents. As a security for the investment made by the second accused, it was demanded that the sale deed has to be executed in favour of the new Company, which is going to be floated by the second accused. He has agreed to execute a separate agreement for the said purpose of returning the said amount to the second accused.

4. The respondents agreed that the second accused can invest the amount and purchase the subject property. The said sale deed is only sham and nominal and it is not supported by any transfer of possession and it was agreed that the actual physical possession of the subject property continues to be vested with the respondents. Accordingly, the second respondent had invested a sum of Rs.30 crores and the same was paid to the vendors