'Accused Is Direct Beneficiary Of Crime' : Madras HC Refuses Plea To Quash Criminal Case Citing Compromise
The Madras High Court refused a plea to quash a criminal case citing compromise entered between accused and defacto complainant.
The High Court was considering a petition seeking to quash the pending criminal case which is launched against the accused and four others for the alleged offences under Sections 120 (B), 420, 468, 471, 344 r/w 109 IPC, Sections 380, 451 r/w 109 IPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran observed that “The fact in respect of the other accused persons have no impediment to continue the prosecution against the petitioner, since charges against her are forgery, cheating and misappropriation. The defacto complainant for reason best known had compromised with A-4, after the political party to which A-4 once closely associated returned back to power. Whatever be the reason, the said compromise will not inure any benefit to this accused, who along with her husband are the direct beneficiaries of the crime alleged”.
“Except recording there are prima facie materials available for trial and the case cannot be branded as a malicious prosecution or a pure civil dispute, the Criminal Original Petition to quash the case is dismissed”, added the Bench.
Advocate A.E. Ravichandran appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate S. Udaya Kumar appeared for the Respondent/ complainant.
As per the brief facts of the case, one Thiru C. Srinivasan had filed a complaint stating that one Suburathinam approached him with a sale proposal of a paper mill by name M/s Zion Paper Mills Private Limited at Coimbatore district. Kingsley, his wife Jamila Kingsley representing the Company as its Directors negotiated with the defacto complainant and entered an MoU fixing the sale consideration for the mill at Rs.12.10 crores. The entire shares of the company were handed over to the defacto complainant with consent to transfer the shares in the name of the complainant. On receipt of Rs.2 crores as advance the possession of the mill and its administration was handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant invested Rs. five crores for upgrading the machines to increase the production capacity and paid a sum of Rs.2 crores to the Union Bank of India, where the Accused had borrowed loan hypothecating the machineries and creating collateral security of their property. The complainant alleged that the Kingsley and his wife Jamila Kingsley had forged the signatures of other two Directors and therefore, there was difficulty in getting the company shares transferred to the name of the complainant. Despite paying substantially towards the agreed sale consideration for the purchase of the Paper Mill, the complainant was not able to get the shares transferred in his name. While so, said Kingsley along with one Ayyappan, who is the henchman of CEO of Sun Pictures, conspired to misappropriate the property of M/s Zion Paper Mills Private Limited which was entrusted to the defacto complainant. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, the defacto complainant was forced to sign documents. Using the men and money power backed by the MLA of the ruling party, the complainant was dispossessed from the Mill premise. The FIR got registered under Sections 342, 387,406, 418, 420, 468,471, 506 (1) IIPC read with 120(b) IPC.
After considering the submission, the Bench observed : "Depending on the political scenario, launching of prosecution, filing of final report, if trial not commenced conducting further investigation and filing further report stating ‘mistake of fact’ or if trial already commenced, recalling its own witness and make them turn hostile to sabotage the criminal trial or forcing the defacto complainant to enter into compromise and get the case quashed even if the offences which are not compoundable under the Code are all not new. What is disheartening is, this attitude which was rare earlier slowing becoming a regular feature whenever politicians, who are highly connected with the political power centre are involved."
The Bench further found that the complaint, which was registered in the year 2011, after completion of investigation, reached the Court for taking cognizance in the year 2015, and even after 8 years, the trial not yet commenced.
The Bench also noted that the fact which is crystallized after investigation indicates that the accused, without consent of other two Directors of the company had entered into MoU with the defacto complainant and received substantial part of sale consideration from the complainant, but the shares could not be transferred to the defacto complainant in view of alleged forgery.
“The dishonest intention to cheat the defacto complainant by A1 and A2 is made out from the fact that the no valid consent from other two Directors were obtained before entering into the MoU with the defacto complainant on 01/05/2008. In addition, the petitioner, her husband and others with the help of the District Secretary of the Ruling Party and a Chief Executive Officer of a Media Company (Sun Pictures) who was known to be close to the ruling party, had forced the defacto complainant to cancel the MoU and execute a document based on which the property has been taken back by A1 and A2. As the result, the defacto complainant is presently left without any scope of remedy to get back his money”, added the Bench.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Jameela Kingsly v. The Inspector of Police and Anr.
Click here to read/ download the Order
