Court upheld the principle that distinct allegations allow for multiple trials without breaching double jeopardy protections.

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Revisions are directed against the orders dated

03.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3123, 3126, 3125 and 3124 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in dismissing the petitions for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners are the accused 5, 1, 7, 8 and 6 in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai.

3. The case of the respondent/complainant is that the respondent was running four business entities in the name of M/s.Shri Naga Agencies, M/s.Shri Naga Trading Company, M/s.K.N.Carriers and M/s.Varshini Associates, that the respondent along with his wife Geeta and mother Nagarathinam were the partners in the said business, that the fifth accused was working as a manager from 1997 onwards, the sixth accused is an associate and relative of the fifth accused and the accused 7 and 8 are the relatives of the fifth accused, that the accused 1 to 4 are the police officials, that since Income Tax Return for the year 2007-2008 was not submitted, the same was questioned by the respondent, for which, the fifth accused gave an evasive reply, that though the fifth accused had promised to submit the accounts and records by 14.01.2010, had left work by midday and thereafter he did not report to the office, that the respondent came to know from the verification of records and accounts, that RC books, cheque leaves signed by the respondent and other documents were found missing and came to understand that the fifth accused had played fraud upon them, that the respondent immediately lodged a police complaint before the Tallakulam Police Station on 21.01.2010 and on 31.01.2010, the first accused called the respondent and asked him to come to Thideer Nagar Police Station and the respondent appeared at about 09.30 p.m. on the same day, that the respondent had seen his absconding manager fifth accused along with the accused 6 to 8 and others at the police station, that the first accused, without taking any action against the accused 5 to 8, informed that the sixth accused claimed to have paid Rs.48 lakhs for purchasing the assets and business of K.N.Carriers and as he was not willing, the respondent was directed to pay the sixth accused an amount of Rs.30 lakhs, that on 11.02.2010, the first accused along with the accused 5 to 8 colluded together and threatened the respondent and his mother and extorted three blank signed cheques from them in the police station and the respondent was forced to agree for all the terms dictated by them under coercion, threat, torture and humiliation and he was forced to sign an agreement on 11.02.2010 as per the dictation of the first accused with false statements as if the respondent and his family members had liability towards the sixth accused and his family members, that though the first accused had promised that the said three cheques will be kept in his custody till enquiry, had breached his promise and fraudulently handed over the cheques and agreement to the sixth accused, that the sixth accused colluding with the first accused and others had presented the cheque belonging to the respondent's mother for Rs.10 lakhs and encashed it on 04.03.2010 in the bogus account of M/s.K.N.Carriers at Veerapandi Branch of Union Bank of India, Theni, which came to be opened fraudulently by the accused 6 to 8 with the help of the fifth accused under false documents, that the respondent gave a cheque stop payment instructions to the Manager of Canara Bank for the remaining two chequ