Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated 23rd April, 2018 passed by learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dismissing the CRL.O.P.(MD) No. 3846 of 2013 preferred by the appellants herein seeking quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 250 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti for offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120B, Section 294(b), Section 506(ii) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’).

Brief facts:-

3. Respondent No. 3(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘complainant’) lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti alleging inter alia that he was having a qualification of M.Sc., MD Graduate. He was appointed as a Government teacher on 8th October, 2007. Before being appointed as a Government teacher, the complainant was doing real estate business for earning his livelihood for past 16 years.

4. The complainant was knowing Kannabiran(hereinafter being referred to as ‘A-3’) who was working as a Manager in the State Bank of India(SBI), Kovilpatti Branch. While being engaged in the real estate business, the complainant came into contact with Subbiah @ Kadambur Jeyaraj(hereinafter being referred to as ‘A- 1’) and his wife A. Vijaya(hereinafter being referred to as ‘A-2’). Through A-1 and A-2, the complainant came into contact with Chandrasekar(hereinafter being referred to as ‘A-4’), his son Pandiyaraj(hereinafter being referred to as ‘A-6’), his wife(S.

Pandiyammal, hereinafter being referred as ‘A-5’), and his brother (K.Shanmugiah, hereinafter being referred as ‘A-8’) who were also engaged in real estate business.

5. The complainant claimed that he always trusted his partners in business. Taking undue advantage of the trusting nature of the complainant, the accused persons induced him to join their real estate business claiming that they had strong political connections. The accused allured and induced the complainant to enter into land deals with the intention to defraud the complainant right at the inception of the transactions. The complainant was told that the documents need not be registered in his own name and instead the registration may be carried out in the name of his sister-in-law. An alternative option was given that if the documents were registered in the names of the accused, the plots could be sold immediately to earn higher profits. By flaunting their political connections, the accused influenced the complainant to make investments into lands assuring that he would reap huge benefits out of these deals.

6. The complainant was also fraudulently induced to believe that out of the chunks of lands so purchased, smaller plots would be carved out and sold to different persons which would frequently require physical presence of the seller and since the complainant was a teacher, he would face inconvenience if the land parcels were to be registered in his name. In this manner, the complainant was not allowed to get the purchased properties registered in his name despite he making the investments. The complainant was given assurances that the plots would be sold for huge profit in a very short duration and he would be given his share. By using this mode of inducement, A-1, A-3, A-4, and A-6 infused a sense of trust in the complainant with the ulterior motive to defraud him and to commit breach of trust.

7. It was further alleged that before the complainant had come in touch with the accused, he and his brother-in-law Chandrasekar, S/o Krishnasamy Naicker had entered into an agreement for sale with A. Sairam in respect of a chunk of land at Allampatti village, admeasuring 8 acres, but the sale could not be finalized because a suit was pending in the District Court, Tuticorin in respect of the said land. In the meantime, the complainant was appointed as a t