Madras High Court
S.Madan Chander vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 August, 2014
Author: C.T. Selvam
Bench: C.T. Selvam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.08.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM CRL.O.P.Nos.454, 715, 716, 1811 and 7793 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 in Crl.O.P.Nos.454 and 1811 of 2014 Crl.O.P.Nos.715 & 716 of 2014 S.Madan Chander .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.715 of 2014 S.Madhumita .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.716 of 2014 vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team I, Chennai. 3.R.Ravindran .. Respondents (impleaded the third respondent as per order of this Court dated 20.03.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2014) Criminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to register a case on the complaints dated 26.09.2013 given by the petitioners in C.No.15814/COP/Visitors/2013 under section 120-B r/w 409, 464, 467, 471, 474, 477-A and 420 IPC against the accused persons named therein, investigate into the matter and take appropriate action in the manner as contemplated under the law. Crl.O.P.No.454 of 2014 S.Moses .. Petitioner vs. 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Crime No.499 of 2011 2.R.Ravindran .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.499 of 2011 dated 10.11.2011 pending on the file of Central Crime Branch, Team XIII, Chennai, insofar as this petitioner is concerned. Crl.O.P.No.7793 of 2014 S.Moses .. Petitioner vs. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, E.V.K.Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 27.02.2014 against Mr.Sundararaman, Mrs.Nalini and Mr.Madanchander (all are residing at Flat No.3, Shoba Regency, No.58, M.G.Ramachandran Road, Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090) and lodge a F.I.R. and take appropriate action in accordance to law. Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 1.Trisakthi Publications Private Limited, represented by its Director, S.Sundararaman 2.S.Sundararaman 3.Nalini Sundararaman 4.S.Madan Chander .. Petitioners vs. 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team XII (Bank Fraud), Egmore, Chennai. 2.M/s.Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., represented by its Regional Manager, R.Ravindran .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records in Crime No.499 of 2011 dated 10.11.2011 registered by the first respondent under sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 469, 471 r/w 468 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners herein and quash the same. Appearance: Crl.O.P.Nos.715, 176 and 1811 of 2014 For Petitioners : Mr.N.Ramakrishnan for M/s.Waraon and Sai Rams For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor (R1 & R2 in Crl.O.P.Nos.715 and 716 of 2014) (R1 in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014) Mr.R.John Sathyan (R3 in Crl.O.P.Nos.715 and 716 of 2014) Crl.O.P.Nos.454 and 7793 of 2014 For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari for Mr.N.Naganathan For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor (for sole respondent in Crl.O.P.No.7793 of 2014 and for R1 in Crl.O.P.No.454 of 2014) Mr.R.John Sathyan (R2 in Crl.O.P.No.454 of 2014) ****** C O M M O N O R D E R
As the questions for consideration arise out of one and the same transaction, all the petitions can be disposed of by a common order.
2. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.715 and 716 of 2014 seek a direction to the respondent police to register cases on the basis of their complaints dated 26.09.2013 for offences under sections 120-B r/w 409, 464, 467, 471, 474, 477-A and 420 IPC against named accused persons and to investigate the same. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.454 of 2014 seeks quash of proceedings in Crime No.499 of 2011 on the file of Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Chennai, insofar as he is concerned. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7793 of 2014 seeks a direction to the respondent to register a case on the basis of his complaint dated 27.02.2014 against named accused persons and to investigate the same. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 seek quash of proceedings in Crime No.499 of 2011 on the file of Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Chennai. The case in Crime No.499 of 2011 for offences under sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 120-B IPC on the file of Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Chennai, was registered at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank.
3. The facts as put forth by petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.715 and 716 of 2014 and Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 are as follows:
(i)Petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.715 and 716 of 2014 are son and daughter of the peititoners 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014. The petitioners 2 to 3 in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 are Directors of the first petitioner company Trisakthi Publications Private Limited, carrying on business of publications of books and periodicals. The company originally carrying on business as a proprietory concern, was banking with Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai, Chennai. In May 2010, one Rajkumar, Director of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, approached the second petitioner through one S.Ramesh, an Advocate and offered to sell 35 grounds of land situated at Kottivakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, held in the name of his employee/benami, one Moses Selvanathan. Believing their version, the second petitioner agreed to purchase the said property through funds to be received by him from Indonesia as also by selling two of his properties at Kumbakkonam.
(ii)Pursuant thereto, an agreement for sale was entered into between the third petitioner and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.454 and 7793 of 2014 on 21.06.2010. A sale agreement duly was executed and S.Ramesh had signed as a witness. The second petitoner has issued a cheque in a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as advance to S.Ramesh drawn in favour of Moses Selvanathan and the same was informed to Rajkumar. As per the sale agreement dated 21.06.2010, the balance consideration was to be paid within a period of three months therefrom. As there was some delay in receiving the funds from Indonesia, the second petitioner requested S.Ramesh to seek extension of time from Rajkumar. Instead of granting time, Rajkumar and S.Ramesh offered to arrange loan from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank/second respondent in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 to complete the sale transaction. They introduced one A.K.Jagannathan, the then Managing Director and Nagendramurthy, the then General Manager (Credit) of the Bank. Thereafter, one Arumugha Pandian, an employee of the Bank, met the second petitioner at his office along with S.Ramesh and informed that as per RBI norms, the loan could be given only as Project Loan. It was suggested by S.Ramesh that the first petitioner company can be converted into a Private Limited Company for the purpose of applying Project Loan. Since the petitioners did not have necessary collateral securities to cover the entire loan, Ramesh and Rajkumar offered to give the property situated at Kottivakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, itself as collateral security. Upon their insistence, the petitioners agreed to induct Moses Selvanathan as a Director of the first petitioner company and a supplemental Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.08.2010 was entered into between the third petitioner and Moses Selvananthan to the effect that Moses Selvanathan would act as a Director of the first petitioner company until the entire sale proceeds of the property situated at Kottivakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, was settled. The same was well within the knowledge of the second respondent Bank.
(iii)Upon the instructions of the bank officials, one Chandra Rajan, the then Chief Manager (Credit) of the second respondent Bank visited the first petitioner company towards preparing a Project Report and Loan Proposal as per the Bank's requirements. The other staff of the Bank also visited the first petitioner company along with S.Ramesh towards obtaining signature of the Directors in various blank forms and processing the loan application. At the instance of the bank officials, the second petitioner along with S.Ramesh met them at their Head Office at Tuticorin on 30.12.2010 wherein he orally was informed that a Term Loan facility of Rs.14.14 crores and a Cash Credit facility of Rs.3.30 crores was sanctioned and it could be utilized towards paying balance consideration to Rajkumar. Some unauthenticated documents were handed over to the second petitioner informing the terms of sanction through S.Ramesh. There was no formal communication of sanction by the second respondent Bank. Thereafter, the loan was disbursed in three installments.
(iv)Upon availing the first Term Loan on 24.01.2011 in a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/-, the second petitioner has purchased the project land situated at Semmanchery Village, OMR, for a total sale consideration of Rs.3.30 crores. The same was also offered as collateral security. The second and third Term Loan was disbursed on 03.02.2011 and 14.03.2011 in sums of Rs.4,31,40,000/-, Rs.1,44,15,000 and Rs.35,62,500/-. Upon the insistence and instructions of Rajkumar, S.Ramesh, A.K.Nagannathan and Nagendramurthy, a substantial portion of the loan amount was paid to Moses Selvanathan and the nominees of Rajkumar and S.Ramesh towards the balance sale consideration of the property situated at Kottivakkam, OMR. The Cash Credit facility sanctioned on 05.07.2011 in a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- directly was paid by the second respondent Bank to the Indian Overseas Bank, Mount Road Branch, Chennai, towards closure of the existing account of Trisakthi Publications held with it. Pursuant to closure of the said account, the property belonging to Madhumita, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.716 of 2014, which was offered as collateral security, was released and the same was transferred to the second respondent Bank directly by Indian Overseas Bank as collateral security in respect of loan availed by the first petitioner. Thus, out of the total amount of Rs.9,73,67,500/- sanctioned by the second respondent Bank, only a sum of Rs.3,19,00,000/- was utilized by the second petitioner and the balance sum of Rs.6,54,00,000/- was paid to Rajkumar towards payment of balance sale consideration in respect of Kottivakkam property through Moses Selvanathan, S.Ramesh and their other nominees. Such fact was well within the knowledge of A.K.Jagannathan and Nagendramurthy. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners had commenced excavation work at the site and there was some delay in commencing the construction work due to certain reasons and the same also was intimated to the second respondent bank and the bank officials have also visited the site. Till such time, all was well.
(v)During August 2011, some dispute arose between two groups of shareholders of the second respondent Bank and allegations were levelled against A.K.Jagannathan and Nagendramurthy to the effect that they have acted in favour of Rajkumar. Not wanting to be caught in the said dispute, the petitioners, under letter dated 30.08.2011, expressed their intent to close the loan account by settling the outstanding amount. Subsequent thereto, the first petitioner company has also paid a sum of Rs.42,50,000/- towards the loan amount and sought time to settle the balance amount after effecting sale of Kottivakkam property. However, on the complaint preferred by the second respondent Bank against the petitioners and others alleging commission of offence of cheating, a case was registered in Crime No.499 of 2011 on the file of Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team XII (Bank Fraud), Egmore, Chennai, for offences under sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 469, 471 r/w 468 and 120-B IPC. Pursuant thereto, the second petitioner was arrested and later, released on bail. Seeking quash of Crime No.499 of 2011 on the file of Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Chennai and a direction to register cases on the basis of petitioners' complaint, the present petitions have been filed.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for second respondent bank.
5. The common contentions of learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.715 and 716 of 2014 and Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 are as follows:
(a)The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 banked with Indian Overseas Bank and Canara Bank. They had no dealings with Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank/complainant. The property in Kottivakkam, OMR, Chennai, was held by one Rajkumar, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, in the name of his benami Moses Selvanathan, petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.454 and 7793 of 2014. In the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.06.2010 entered into between the third petitioner and Moses, an Advocate by name S.Ramesh has signed as a witness. He took the second petitioner to the Managing Director of the second respondent Bank. Thus, the petitioners were lured into the property transaction. Upon their insistence that as the property stood in the name of Moses, he should be included as a Director of the company, a supplemental Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.08.2010 informing that Moses would act as the Director of first petitioner company viz., M/s.Trisakthi Publications Private Limited and that he agreed to give his property as collateral security was entered into. Raising the question of why a rustic person such as Moses would be brought in as the Director of the first accused Company but for the insistence of the complainant bank, learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner indeed intended to, Moses would have been included as the Director even at the stage of first Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.06.2010. Submitting that the second respondent Bank's approval for loan to M/s.Trisakthi Publications Private Limited were not informed through a proper sanction ticket, learned counsel states that it was not the bank that recalled the monies advanced but the petitioners on finding out that they had been duped and that a property under litigation had been thrusted upon them, have expressed their intention to close the account. The loan was disbursed in three installments. The first Term Loan was disbursed on 24.01.2011 in a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. The second and third Term Loan were disbursed on 03.02.2011 and 14.03.2011 in sums of Rs.4,31,40,000/-, Rs.1,44,15,000 and Rs.35,62,500/- respectively.
(b)All payments had been made by way of cheques and as instructed by the officials of the complainant bank. The loan monies had been utilized towards purchase of property at Kottivakkam, OMR, Chennai and closure of account in Indian Overseas Bank held in the name of Madhumitha, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.716 of 2014. It was the duty of the lender/complainant Bank to monitor the end use of funds. As all payments have been made by way of cheques and the bank had realised the same without any murmur, the petitioners, not having taken a single penny, had been caught in the cross fire between the rival group of shareholders of the complainant bank. It is the contention of one group that loan was granted in favour of Managing Director of the second respondent Bank and they have preferred complaints to Reserve Bank of India. Not wanting to be caught in the wrangling, the petitioners had informed their intent to close the account by settling the remaining outstandings with interest not later than 31.12.2011. The Manager of the complainant bank, over phone, called the second petitioner for a meeting and discussion with the Managing Director and the then General Manager (Credit) at the Llyods road branch, Chennai, on 17.10.2012. The second petitioner innocentely had called at the said premise and was informed that the Managing Director was busy at another meeting and had met the General Manager and explained the position. However, to his shock, when leaving the premises he had been arrested. The second petitioner had suffered incarceration and on being released on bail, had put forward a fresh proposal. Under communication dated 15.04.2013, the first petitioner company had informed the de facto complainant bank that the acceptance of the proposal of the first petitioner company to effect sale of property situated at Kottivakkam, OMR, at Rs.6 crores would have reduced the liability of the first petitioner company to merely Rs.1.5 crores, they already having effected payment of Rs.2,06,16,687/- as on 11.10.2012. The petitioner company has once again approached the second respondent bank with a fresh proposal of effecting sale of Kottivakkam property for a sum of Rs.6 crores to another buyer, who despite knowledge of litigation was ready to purchase the property on an as is where is basis. Upon petitions for anticipatry bail filed by the other accused, this Court had referred the matter for mediation. The second respondent bank had been most uncooperative though the matter stood reffered to mediation and eventually withdrew therefrom. One of the reasons informed in the communication dated 21.05.2013 on behalf of the bank withdrawing from mediation was that the collateral document of Kottivakkam property submitted by Moses, petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.454 and 7793 of 2014 was an invalid one and the bank was entangled in contempt proceedings pending in Contempt Petition No.1337 of 2012 in O.A.No.205 of 2010 in C.S.163 of 2010 preferred by one M/s.Pioneer Software Park Private Ltd. and that this Court passed an interim order in Sub Application No.429 of 2012 in Contempt Petition No.1337 of 2012 on 04.02.2013 against the second respondent bank, requiring it to cancel the mortgage and return the document to such company. Such was not the reason informed in the communication of the complainant dated 22.10.2012, the bank under such communication having required payment of sum above Rs.6 crores offered by the petitioner towards release of property at Kottivakkam, OMR. The petitioners are not party to contempt proceedings only the fourth accused, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.454 and 7793 of 2014 is. The action brought against the petitioners was most malafide. The petitioners are innocent victims and the case registered in Crime No.499 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent was a malafide action. The bank was holding two other properties of value about Rs.5 crores and thus, there absolutely would be no liability to the bank even if realisation thereof was necessary.
(c)Upon the insistence of the Mediation Centre, the bank officials, under covering letter dated 30.06.2012, have furnished attested copies of secuirty/loan documents allegedly executed towards availing loan. On a perusal of the documents, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.751 of 2014 found that the blank documents signed by him at the very inception towards availing loan have been fabricated by filling up the same. All the contents in the documents were printed except the date, which was handwritten by a single person. As against the disbursement of Term Loan-III and Cash Credit Facility in a sum of Rs.82,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,00,000/- respectively, the bank officials have created documents to show that a sum of Rs.2,44,50,000/- and Rs.3,30,00,000/- have been disbursed towards Term Loan and Cash Credit Facility. The documents are of the dates 20.06.2011 and 05.07.2011. It is the contention that the petitioner was not in India on such dates as would be evident from the passport of the petitioner. Feeling cheated, the petitioner has preferred a complaint before the first respondent police against the bank officials.
(d)The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.716 of 2014 is no way connected with the transaction and she has been falsely implicated. The petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in Crime No.499 of 2011. The Cash Credit Facility of Rs.1,00,00,000/- has been directly paid by Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank to Indian Overseas Bank, Mount Road, towards closure of account held in the name of the petitioner and transferring the mortgage security to Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. Learned counsel submits that the security documents reflect sums as due larger than that owed as on the dates thereof and that equitable mortgage of the petitioner's property was effected in favour of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank even on dates prior to release of equitable mortgage of such property by the Indian Overseas Bank. Alleging that the documents signed by the petitioner and her husband towards availing loan have been fabricated, the petitioner has preferred a complaint before the second respondent police against the bank officials. Submitting as above, learned counsel seeks quash of proceedings in Crime No.499 of 2011 on the file of Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Chennai and a direction to register cases on the basis of the petitioners' complaint dated 26.09.2013.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.454 and 7793 of 2014 submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property situated at Kottivakkam, OMR. The staff of Thirunageswaram temple introduced the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.1811 of 2014 to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in need of money, he approached the second petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 and expressed his intention to sell the property. A2, aware of litigation regards the property, agreed to purchase the property at Rs.13 crores. Pursuant thereto, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.06.2010 was entered into between the petitioner and the third petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014. A2 has given two cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.24,00,000/- and requested the petitioner to present only the cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-. Upon the request of A2, the petitioner has agreed to serve as a Director in his company viz., Trisakthi Publications Pvt. Ltd. and a supplemental Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.08.2010 was entered into. A2 has paid only a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- towards the sale consideration. Upon the insistence and instructions of A2, the petitioner has signed in the loan documents towards getting the balance sale consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that A2 was arrested based on the complaint given by Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. In the complaint, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Informing that A2 has obtained an order of bail and one of the conditions imposed was to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores, A2 requested the petitioner to deposit some money in A2's account with the ICICI Bank. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.38 lakhs. Learned counsel submits that after hearing the anticipatory bail petition this Court referred the matter to mediation. At that time, M/s.Pioneer Software Park Private Ltd. preferred a contempt petition against the petitioner and Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. Only thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the transactions between the Bank and A2. As mediation failed, the matter was referred to Court and the petitioner's anticipatory bail petition was dismissed. Submitting that the petitioner is in no way connected with the bank transactions, no specific allegations have been made against him in the complaint preferred by Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank and he had been cheated by the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014, learned counsel seeks quash of proceedings in Crime No.499 of 2011 on the file of respondent police insofar as this petitioner is concerned. He also seeks a direction to register a case against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014 based on his complaint dated 27.02.2014.
7. Mr.John Sathyan, learned counsel for de facto complainant bank submitted that the bank initially had rejected the request of the first accused company, but the same had been reprocessed and at the insistence of A2, the second petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.1811 of 2014, release had been effected after fulfillment of all requirements. It is not the case of the petitioners that money had not been disbursed. It was only that the same was done when the petitioners were not in the country. A2 was arrested and was in custody for a period of thirty days. At the stage of consideration of bail application of A2 and anticipatory bail application of A3 to A5, the petitioners had stated that they would settle the dues. Thus, the matter was referred to mediation. The complainant bank received a notice from M/s.Pioneer Software Park Private Ltd. informing that the Kottivakkam property was mortgaged to them and an order of injunction has been passed in O.A.No.205 of 2010 and O.A.No.3376 of 2010 in C.S.No.163 of 2010. The further statement of the complainant was recorded by the investigative agency. Under orders in Sub Application No.429 of 2012 in Contempt Petition No.1337 of 2012, this Court directed cancellation of the mortgage effected in favour of the complainant and directed return of documents. Efforts at mediation had failed and anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed. Presently, false allegations were being levelled. Learned counsel would submit that the bank transactions of the first accused company on the face of it reflected wrong doing. Cheques had been drawn in favour of concerns by name M/s.Saffire Traders and M/s.Orbit Engineers upon fictitious account held with the ICICI Bank, R.A.Puram. One of the accused impersonated one Chirstina Moses, who was the propertier of both companies viz., M/s.Saffire Traders and M/s.Orbit Engineers. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.715 of 2014 was part of the conspiracy and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.716 of 2014 also kept silent. Therefore, both petitioners are lacking in bonafides. The money was routed through fictitious accounts and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.715 and 716 of 2014 were aware thereof. Concealment of such fact itself amounts to serious offence. As regards Crl.O.P.No.454 of 2014, learned counsel would state that there was no bonafides in such petition and the petitioner therein merely was blaming the family of the second accused. To impress that the complainant bank was not shielding Rajkumar, its Director, learned counsel submitted that such person had been removed from directorship. He had challenged the same before the Madurai Bench of this Court. This Court ordered reinstatement and holding of Annual General Meeting. 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements against other bank officers also were recorded. Therefore, it was wrong to impute any improper motive to the de facto complainant.
8. By way of reply, learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.1811, 715 and 716 of 2014 submitted that the lower level officers were being made scapegoats to hush up wrong doing. To impress that the Kottivakkam property came to be purchased and mortgated only in the manner informed by the petitioners, learned counsel submits that the very first proposal for loan was submitted by the petitioners only on 21.06.2010. However, the legal opinion issued by the de facto complainant Bank's counsel regards such property was of the date 10.05.2010 and the same has also been valued by the bank's approver on 20.05.2010. Therefore, it is his submission that this makes apparent the fact that the petitioners had been duped by senior officials of the bank and induced into purchasing the property and in the manner informed by him.
9. Mr.C.Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, relying on the counter filed by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team XII, Vepery, Chennai, submits that only on completion of investigation, the real culprits would be identified and brought to book and therefore, it would not be appropriate to quash proceedings at this stage.
10. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
11. A perusal of the complaint preferred by the second respondent bank informs commission of cognizable offences. Quashing of First Information Report may be considered only in the rarest of rare cases. However, this Court finds that
(i)the property of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.716 of 2014 had not been released from equitable mortgage held by the Indian Overseas Bank on the date shown by the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank as the date of equitable mortgage in its favour;
(ii)the valuation report of the property situated at Kottivakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road and the legal opinion, had been obtained by Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank on dates even prior to the initial proposal put up by Trisakthi Publications;
(iii)the security documents are said to have been executed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.715 of 2014 on dates when he was not in the country;
(iv)reasonable doubt arises as to whether the security documents reflect the correct sums due to Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank as on the dates thereof.
The above features lead to the conclusion that all is not well with the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank insofar as the transactions with Trisakthi Publications are concerned and are suggestive of wrong doing. The question of whom is involved in offence/offences, if any and how the same came to be committed are matters for investigation. It would but be appropriate that cases are registered upon complaints of the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.715, 716 and 7793 of 2014 and that the same be investigated by the same investigative agency involved in the investigation in Crime No.499 of 2011 on the file of Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Chennai.
12. In the circumstances, this Court orders as follows:
(i)Crl.O.P.Nos.1811 of 2014 and 454 of 2014 are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(ii)Crl.O.P.Nos.715, 716 and 7793 of 2014 are disposed of by directing the concerned respondent police to register cases based on the complaint of the petitioners dated 26.09.2013 and 27.02.2014 and transfer the same to The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Egmore, Chennai 600 008, to be investigated along with Crime No.499 of 2011.
22.08.2014 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm To
1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team I, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Bank Fraud Wing, Team XII, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
4.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, E.V.K.Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.T. SELVAM, J.
gm Pre-delivery order in CRL.O.P.Nos.454, 715, 716, 1811 and 7793 of 2014 22.08.2014