COMMON ORDER

Seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.43 of 2020, dated 06.02.2020, on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-1 Wing, Chennai, the petitioners, who are A1 and A3 are before this Court with these petitions.

2.The gist of the case is that the 2^nd respondent – defacto complainant filed a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.PC., before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate CCB & CBCID Special Court, Egmore, Chennai, which has been forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Veppery, Chennai. Pursuant to which, a case in Crime No. 43 of 2020, has been registered on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-1 Wing, Chennai.

3. The complainant's mother one T.Rajammal, during her life time had purchased a property being the land measuring an extent of 10.81 Acres comprised in Survey No.1066 in Madhavaram Village, Thiruvallur District, vide Sale Deed, dated 19.07.1940, registered as Document No.1066 of 1940, on the file of Office of Sub Registrar, Sembiam. In the year 1945, the complainant's mother Rajammal died intestate leaving behind the complainant's father Lt.Col.T.Murari, brother Mahendra Murari, the complainant and his two sisters viz., Padmini and Nalini, as her legal heirs to succeed to the above property. Subsequent to that, all the family members have unanimously decided that the above said property should go to the complaint and his brother Mahendra Murari, on equal share of 50%, but only after the life time of their father T.Murari. Since the complainant's father was a person who would trust any person and would easily fall prey to the advice of any third persons, it was decided that the complainant's father should have life interest alone in the above said property and after his life time, the above said property could be enjoyed by both complainant and his brother absolutely with 50% share each. Thus, with a recital of such a condition clause of life interest to the complainant's father, the complainant's two sisters executed a Settlement Deed in respect of the said property, which was registered as Document No.4360 of 1959, on the file of Office of Sub Registrar, Chengelput.

4. The complainant and his family members are ardent devotees of 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba', they had acquaintance with the accused and their father Dr.Karunakaran, who also pretended to be an ardent devotees of 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' and for that reason, they had close relationship. Being so, the complainant and his family members had an idea of forming a charitable trust, transfer the above said property to such a charitable trust, proposed to be formed, and through the trust they wanted to involve themselves in the charitable and philanthropic activities of supporting aged persons, physically challenged persons and orphans, by constructing an orphanage in the above said land. When that being so, the said Dr.Karunakaran and A1 and A2 approached the family members of the complainant, offered to purchase the above said property. Since, the complainant and his family members had intention of floating a charitable trust and using the said property for charitable activities have turned down their offer.

5. However, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and their father again approached the complainant and his family members permitting to construct a Hospital in the said property only to help the poor people with non profit motive. They further informed that they would also help the complainant and his family members starting the charitable trust, would transfer the hospital intended to be started to the trust of the complainant and his family once the trust is floated and further informed that they would help them in starting an orphanage in the remaining portion of the land. On such repeated persuasions and inducements made by the accused, the complainant and his family members believed them.

6. By that time, the complainant had l