Dmk mp jegath rashagan quash petition copy filed by advt n sethilkumar

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Crl.O.P. No. of 2020

Against

Crime No.2 of 2016
(On the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarter, Chennai)

S.Jagathrakshakan,
Aged about 72 Years,
S/o.Swamikannu Gounder,
No.1, 1st Main Road, Kasthuribai Nagar,
Adyar,
Chennai-600020 … Petitioner/2nd Accused

Vs.
1. State by
Inspector of Police,
CBCID
Head Quarters-Chennai
Crime.No.02/2016. .. Respondent/Complainant

2. Q. Dawson,
Aged about 65 years,
S/o.G.E.Dawson,
Power Agent of
George Joseph Chambers (Late),
No.4/350,Kennedy Valley,
Moovarasampet,
Chennai-600091.
… Respondent/
Defacto Complainant

PETITION FOR QUASH

The address for service of process and notices on the petitioners is that of his counsel M/s.N.Senthilkumar & K.Suresh, Advocates, No.266, Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai.

The address for service of notices and processes on the respondents is as stated above.

The petitioner above named begs to prefer this Memorandum of Criminal Original Petition before this Hon’ble Court and prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No.2 of 2016, on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID Head Quarters, Chennai and may be pleased to quash the same for the following among other

G R O U N D S

1. The petitioner submits that the respondent herein had registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2016, for offences under section 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) I.P.C., based on the orders passed by the Hon’ble District Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in Crl.R.C.No.5 of 2014, as against the petitioner and 10 others. The petitioner has been arrayed as A-2.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant is the power agent of Mr George Joseph Chambers, who is the only surviving legal heir of late George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers, who is the 3rd wife of Mr.George Alexander Chambers. That George Alexander Chambers appointed three trustees viz. Ida L Chambers, H.M.Small and Vellore Parthasarathy Jeganathan Mudaliar and George Joseph Chamber’s father K.H. Chambers is the son of George Alexander Chamber and the 2nd respondent’s principal’s father died on 24-11-1989 leaving behind George Joseph Chamber. George Alexander Chambers purchased 5000 equity shares and 2000 preferential shares in the name of Chrome Leather Company and among those shares 4997 shares were held by the Trustees and 3 shares held by Mrs.Ida L Chambers and the Trustees executed a Sale Deed in favour of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited and Ida L Chambers came into possession of the properties in her individual capacity and later compromise decree was passed on 19-02-1965 in C.S.46/1963 & C.S.2/1964 and thereafter the properties came into the possession of Ida L Chambers and she died on 13-08-1968 leaving behind no legal heirs other than the principal of the defacto Complainant and the principal of the complainant was travelling on the high seas as an officer in Merchant Navy and he was not able to concentrate upon the properties and the 2nd respondent collected details and came to know that most of the properties were unlawfully and illegally meddled by the Petitioner herein and others and they are rowdies and they threatened the 2nd respondent and revenue records were manipulated and they created false documents and forged the signatures of original owners and basing upon the aforesaid allegations, a case in Cr.No.304/2007 was registered by the City Crime Branch X, Thousand Lights, Chennai on 20.06.2007.

3. The petitioner submits that Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, had started the investigation and had conducted the enquiries and examined the witnesses and later the Central Crime branch Police had filed a Final Report by concluding the case as one of Mistake of Fact. The aforesaid final report was duly filed before the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, Poonamallee and the second respondent had also was given opportunity to raise his objections, by giving due notice to the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee in C.M.P.4147 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 23/04/2009 and had accepted the final report filed as Mistake of Fact. As such, the aforesaid final report attained finality and no revision has been filed against the order of the Magistrate in accepting the final report of the Police.

4. The petitioner submits that after the aforesaid order and after a lapse of 3 years from the date of closure of the above case, based on the Suo-Muto order passed by the Additional Director General of Police, vide R.C.No.C6/8313/2012, the above said case was taken up for further investigation and the first respondent herein has filed an application for further investigation without producing any prima facie materials to show the need for further investigation, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.3915/2013, in the said proceedings the Legal heirs of George Joseph Chambers had also intervened and made their submissions. Later the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu had dismissed the petition filed by the first respondent seeking for further investigation on 26.02.2014.

5. The petitioner submits against the aforesaid dismissal, the first respondent herein had filed Crl.R.C.5 of 2014 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and the same was allowed on 11/08/2016. Based upon the aforesaid order, the first respondent has registered the present first information report in Cr.No.2 of 2016 by relying upon the same allegations levelled in the original complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. As such, the present case has been registered as against the petitioner herein and others for the offences under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) IPC on 21.11.2016.

6. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was also called for enquiry and the petitioner had co-operated in the enquiry and all the required documents as sought by the first respondent was also produced by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the above case after a period of nearly 7 years had been transferred to the file of the first respondent after the closure of the case in the year 2009. The petitioner submits that the petitioner did not prefer any revision and the petitioner to establish his bonafide, had co-operated in the enquiry. The above case is pending from the year 2016.

7. The petitioner submits that it is respectfully submitted that there is absolutely no allegation as against the petitioner herein in order to attract the offences under section 420, 465, 466 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) IPC. Further, the 2nd Respondent has lodged another complaint in Cr.No.305/2007 on the date of the present complaint in question, wherein he clearly admitted the Sale transactions in favour of the petitioner herein from Central Bank of India, but in the present complaint the 2nd respondent vaguely stated as if the petitioner is in unlawful possession of the lands.

8. The petitioner submits that it is further respectfully submitted that the entire allegation as per the complaint and the first information report revolves that Ida L Chambers left the properties leaving behind the petitioner’s principal as her legal heir and her signatures were forged and documents had been fabricated. But, the said Ida L Chambers, during her life time, sold the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited to A.Nagappa Chettiar as early in the year 1965 and the same had been recorded before this Hon’ble Court.

9. The petitioner herein summarizes the following facts for better appreciation:
a. Originally George Alexander Chambers, an Englishman, had three wives whom he married one after the other after each of the earlier wives died. The first wife was Ethel Mary Chambers, the 2nd wife was Margaret Agnes the 3rd wife was Ida Louisa Chambers. Through the first wife, George Alexander Chambers 3 children by name Kelland Huxford Chambers, Phyllis Dora Chambers and Sheila Dora Chambers. Through the 2nd wife, George Alexander Chambers had a son by name Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers. The 3rd wife Ida L Chambers had no issues.

b. Mr.George Alexander Chambers was carrying on the business in leather in the name of two proprietorship concerns viz. M/s.Chrome Leather Company & M/s.Chambers & Co. The said Mr George Alexander Chambers died on 16/11/1937 left behind a Will in favour of Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers and also appointed Executors. The aforesaid Will was probated before this Honourable court in O.P.57 of 1938. In the meanwhile, Ida L Chambers & the Executors of the Will constituted a limited liability company viz. M/s.Chrome Leather Company Private Limited by converting the aforesaid two proprietary concerns on 07/12/1943. The aforesaid company was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai and assigned with CIN U19113TN1943-PLC000421.

c. Thereafter, the aforesaid Executors and Ida L Chambers sold the 6immovable and movable properties to M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited by means of a registered sale deed dated 14/03/1944 under Doc.No.530/1944. The aforesaid sale deed was challenged by Roy Edwin Medclaf Chambers in a civil suit in C.S.46/1963. The aforesaid suit has been instituted as against Ida L Chambers. Mrs.Ida L Chambers also filed another suit in C.S.2 of 1964 as against Roy Edwin Medclaf Chambers seeking permission to effect a sale of 7000 shares in the Chrome Leather Company Private Limited . The aforesaid two suits were disposed of under a Common Compromise Decree dated 19-12-1965 in Application No.220 of 1965 in C.S.2 of 1964. The important terms of the decree as follows:

1. The Trust created as a result of the Will of the late George Alexander Chambers was put to an end. Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Medclaf Chambers and his heirs were to divide the corpus of the property so as to enable them to obtain an absolute estate in whatever properties they would hold thereafter.

2. Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers and members of his family were to be paid certain sums of money to maintain themselves, and until these sums were paid, there would be a Charge on the properties of the Chrome Leather Company Limited.

3. Ida L Chambers or the Chrome Leather Company Private Limited would be at liberty to pay the entire balance of any instalment mentioned therein at an early date.

4. In case there was a delay in the payment of instalments of a capital or interest by more than 3 months, the entire unpaid balance amount then due shall be payable forthwith and the parties shall be at liberty to collect the said amount from Ida L Chambers and The Chrome Leather Company Limited as a money decree.

5. Subject to the above payments, the balance of the property belonging to the trust or to M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited shall belong absolutely to Ida L Chambers.

6. The entire property of Ida L Chambers and of Chrome Leather Company Limited shall be a charge for the payment of any sums due under the decree.

10. The Petitioner submits that the aforesaid compromise was duly recorded and recognized by the court and consequently the decree was passed. The aforesaid decree has not been challenged by anybody and hence the aforesaid decree had become final.

11. The Petitioner submits that after the Compromise decree, Ida L Chambers entered into an agreement dated 21/04/1965 with A.Nagappa Chettiar with an intention to transfer her shareholdings in M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited. It is also needless to mention that the sale deed in favour of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited has not been cancelled or declared as void in the aforesaid civil litigations, on the other hand the sale in favour of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited has been recognized by this Honourable court and that is the reason why a charge has been created over the properties of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited. Since Ida L Chambers was the owner of the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited, she was very much entitled to transfer the shares as per her wish subject to the terms of compromise. Accordingly, she entered into an agreement for transferring the shares with A.Nagappa Chettiar.

12. The petitioner submits that as per the aforesaid Agreement, the purchaser A.Nagappa Chettiar was directed to pay a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs together with the interest thereon to Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers and his family members as per the Compromise Decree dated 19/02/1965. Thereafter, share certificates issued to A.Nagappa Chettiar with distinctive numbers totaling 4995 equity shares and 1800 Preference Shares. Immediate to the aforesaid sale, objection was raised by Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers by filing an Application No.2297 of 1965 in C.S.46 of 1963 on the ground that the charge created under the Compromise Decree was not registered with the Registrar of Companies. In the aforesaid application the following facts had been specifically admitted/mentioned by Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers:

1. In para 10 & 11 of the affidavit filed in Application No.2297/1965 in C.S.46/1963, it has been stated as “the scrutiny of the records with the Registrar further reveals that Mrs. Ida L Chambers has made over a good portion of her shares since the decree to the following persons who are now shown as directors along with her.
a. A.Nagappa Chettiar
b. N Umayal Achi
c. MN Arunahcalam Chettiar
d. K.Sampath.
“Of the above four, I reliably understand that the first mentioned person is the real purchaser of the shares and the rest are merely his nominees. I understand that she has collected substantial amounts by making over shareholdings to Sri.A.Nagappa Chettiar despite the shares being property charged with the decretal debt.

“11. Sri.Nagappa Chettiar is known to be one of the leaders of leather trade in as elsewhere having control over and owning a large number of factories and Tanneries. He is in full charge and control of the 2nd respondent company. There is none to prevent him from depleting the company of all its valuable assets by dispensing them to his other concerns and thus reducing the 2nd respondent into a mere shell of what it had in effect represented at the time of the decree”

13. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid contention of Mr.Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers clearly revealed a fact that he knew about the transfer of shares from Ida L Chambers to A.Nagappa Chettiar.

14. The petitioner further submits that Mrs. Ida L Chambers also filed counter in response to the Application No.2297/1965 in C.S.No.46/1963 and the relevant portion is as follows:

“7. With reference to the allegations made in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the affidavit, I state that I have sold all the shares except one to Sri.A.Nagappa Chettiar and 3 others who are all my co-directors in the company. This circumstance I submit cannot in any manner affect the rights of the applicant and his family with respect to the charge created over the company’s assets. I am not aware of the correctness or otherwise of the other allegations made against Nagappa Chettiar which in any event are totally irrelevant for the purpose of this application. Admittedly Nagappa Chettiar is in control over a number of factories and tanneries including the India Leather Corporation (P) limited, a well-known and established firm dealing in hides and skins and leather goods. The allegations against Sri.A.Nagappa Chettiar , whom the applicant has not chosen to make a party are scandalous and mischievous and defamatory and are merely introduced for ulterior purposes by interested parties. To the best of my knowledge, Sri.Nagappa Chettiar is one of the leading businessman and exporters in the trade, whom even the applicant has approached on more than one occasion for financial assistance.”

15. The petitioner submits that the above affidavit of Mrs.Ida L Chambers is another classical evidentiary document to show the transfer of shares from Ida L Chambers to Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar.

16. The petitioner further submits that the aforesaid application 2297 of 1965 was dismissed on 27 /09/1965 on the ground the application of Mr.Roy Edwin is a premature one. Later on, all the sums due to Mr.Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers and his family members were settled by M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited and accordingly, an affidavit was sworn by Mr.Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers in Application 757 of 1968 in C.S.2 of 1964 where by acknowledging the receipt of payment from M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited and the full satisfaction of decree had also been recorded before this Hon’ble Court. The aforesaid affidavit was sworn on 11-05-1968. As such the charge created by virtue of the Compromise Decree dated 19/02/1965 had been satisfied by M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited. By virtue of the aforesaid affidavit, it is crystal clear that Mr.Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers himself admitted the factum of transfer of shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited in favour of Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar. It is also necessary to mention that the change of shareholding in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar was also recorded with the Registrar Of Companies, Chennai.

17. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid affidavits of Mr.Roy Edwin and Mrs.Ida L Chambers clearly prove the fact that there could not have been any forgery of transfer deeds in respect of the shares in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar. When there was no allegation of forgery as early in the year 1968 by the concerned persons, there cannot be any plea of forgery to be taken by any other persons like the 2nd respondent herein, who is absolutely not competent.

18. The petitioner submits that it is also very relevant to mention that the transfer of shares in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar was very much brought to the notice of this Honourable Court as early in the year 1965.

19. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid two affidavits of Mr.Roy Edwin and Mrs.Ida L Chambers constitute statement under oath to the High Court and hence it spelt out the truth which cannot be challenged by the descendants of the aforesaid persons or any other persons especially when the Executant of the Transfer Deed had admitted the execution.

20. The petitioner submits that subsequent to the control over M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited, Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar availed credit facilities with the Central Bank of India, for which he pledged the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited and also mortgaged the properties belonging to M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited. It is also needless to mention that at the time of transfer of shares in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar, M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited owned only 67 acres of land alone.

21. The petitioner submits that it is also necessary to mention that as per the prevailed norms of Reserve Bank of India at the relevant time, the shares pleaded by A.Nagappa Chettiar were also transferred in the name of the bank on 20/07/1977. Since the company defaulted in making payment, the Central Bank of India filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu in O.S.314/1980. Later on, the compromise was recorded between the parties and accordingly a preliminary decree passed on the basis of a compromise in I.A.614 of 1981 in O.S.314/1980 on 19/10/1981. As per the decree, the Central Bank of India was entitled to transfer 4995 equity shares and 1800 preference shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited. Thereafter, the aforesaid judgement was not challenged by anybody and attained finality. Since the company was sustained losses, it has been referred to BIFR. In spite of so many efforts, there was no possibility for any rehabilitation. So, BIFR Bench prima facie concluded that the company had to be wound up in terms of the provisions of section 20 of the Act vide order dated 15-04-1991. Thereafter, Workers’ Union filed W.P.8150/1991 before this Honourable court challenging the order of BIFR and interim stay was also granted. In the meanwhile the Central Bank of India in order to realise its dues published notice on 27/06/1993 inviting tenders from the prospective buyers for purchase of the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited including its immovable properties and building and machineries. It is needless to mention that once the shares of the Company had been sold, the persons who bought the shares will be in the Board of Directors of the Company and in such case, the Management shifts from one to another and there is no necessity to execute any transfer deeds for transfer of immovable properties as the properties of the company all alone goes with the Company.

22. The petitioner submits that M/s.VKK Charities made their bid and finally they had been declared as successful bidder. Though the old promoters of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited filed the writ petitions in order to stall the auction proceedings, they have not succeeded in their attempt. Later on, the bid of M/s.VKK Charities was confirmed. It has been represented by the new promoters before the BIFR that they want to rehabilitate the company without resorting to the sale of lands. Though the old promoters raised objection regarding the action of the Central Bank of India in selling the shares, BIFR bench overruled the objections raised by the old promoters and recognised the proposal given by VKK Charities as an alternative to the winding up of the company and accordingly BIFR appointed Central Bank of India as operating agency to examine the proposed revival scheme submitted by the new promoters treating it as a proposal for a change of management vide order dated 18-10-1994. As per the order of the BIFR, the issue had been addressed by the Central Bank of India. After examining all the aspects, the Central Bank of India had come to a conclusion that VKK Charities had proved their capacity for bringing in funds for a start-up operations and the proposed scheme was viable. It is also interesting to note that the workers union supported the proposal of the new promoters and they have also withdrawn the writ filed by them and later their dues had also been settled.

23. The petitioner submits that it is further submitted that the old promoters had challenged the order of the BIFR before the AAIFR and the same has also been dismissed. Later on, VKK Charities nominated Mr.S.Jagathrakshakan, who is the petitioner herein, to the Board of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited vide letter dated 29-05-1995 and nominated Mr.S.Jagathrakshakan for receiving transfer of shares in his own name and also nominated him as a Director of the company. It has also been informed to BIFR and only upon the direction of BIFR, the petitioner has made the payment to the Central Bank of India. The Central Bank of India accepted the nominations and executed necessary share transfer deeds transferring 4995 equity shares in the name of S.Jagathrakshakan. So, a valid transfer effected as per the instructions of BIFR by the Central Bank of India in favour of S.Jagathrakshakan . The Central Bank of India had also realised its dues and issued No Due Certificate to that effect. As such, the transfer of shares either in favour of Nagappa Chettiar or in favour of S.Jagathrakshakan did not involve any forgery or fabrication and all the transfers had been effected either with the permission of the court or it had been recognised by the court in collateral proceedings.

24. The petitioner submits that the de facto complainant had alleged forgery in his complaint against Nagappa Chettiar , he had not provided any details as to how the forgery happened and when the forgery happened. In the absence of any details regarding the alleged forgery, the present FIR is liable to be quashed on the simple ground that the transfer in favour of Nagappa Chettiar had been clearly admitted by Mrs.Ida L Chambers and Mr. Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers before this Honourable court in an affidavit as early in the year 1968.

25. The petitioner submits that when there is no question of forgery and the execution of transfer is admitted by the parties concerned, the de facto complainant has no locustandi to challenge those transfer under the guise of forgery in a criminal proceedings.

26. The petitioner submits that even on a mere perusal of the first information report, the de facto complainant alleges only about irregularities and the same cannot be the basis for initiating criminal proceedings. All the alleged irregularities are absolutely civil in nature and the same cannot be converted into a criminal case.

27. The petitioner submits that it is also needless to mention that after the closure of the complaint in crime number 305 of 2007, another complaint has been lodged by the 2nd respondent herein with the same set of allegations and consequently he filed Crl.O.P.19104 of 2014 for a direction to register FIR. Upon hearing the aforesaid petition, this Honourable court had dismissed the petition on the ground that neither the principal nor the 2nd respondent herein have any locustandi to maintain any action against the actual legal heirs of George Alexander Chambers and also concluded that the property belonging to George Alexander chambers had already been bequeathed to his 3rd wife Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers who dealt with the same in accordance with the right available to them and the same was subsequently sold to M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited and the 2nd respondent herein abused the process of court and dismissed the petition vide order dated 23-07-2014.

28. The petitioner submits that it is also submitted that the registration of present first information report on the basis of an instruction for further investigation with the permission of the Magistrate is against Law especially when the earlier final report was filed before the court and the accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate and recorded the same as Mistake of Fact. It is submitted that the order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate is a judicial order and hence the same can be reversible only by the order of any higher forum after setting aside the order of the Magistrate. In the case on hand, the order of the Magistrate accepting the final report of the Police had attained finality and the same had not been challenged by anybody before the revisional or appellate court. So, the very basis of registration of FIR for the purpose of further investigation is absolutely illegal.

29. The petitioner submits that it is a settled position of law that “The Magistrate while passing the order, exercised his judicial mind and discretion, and unless that order is set aside, the re-investigation of the case on the same complaint is an illegality”.

30. The petitioner submits that it is also submitted that the 2nd respondent herein had lodged another complaint along with the present complaint in question, wherein he alleged a different version by saying that the properties were unlawfully illegally medalled by the petitioner herein along with others and the records had been manipulated for inducting the name of the petitioner and others in the name of George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers. The aforesaid version is quite contra to the forgery plea adopted in the present complaint and the allegation that the certificates had been forged by A.Nagappa Chettiar. Whereas, it is crystal clear admission by the 2nd respondent that the compromise was recorded on 19/02/1965. When this fact has been admitted, either the 2nd respondent herein or his principal cannot be termed as a legal heir of Ida L Chambers as per Indian Succession Act in the matter of succession of Christians.

31. The petitioner submits that it is further submitted that Mrs.Ida L Chambers had executed a Will dated 29-10-1949 & Codicil dated 03-06-1950. Mrs.Ida L Chambers died on 13-08-1968. She appointed the Chartered bank as the executor of the Will. It is worthwhile to mention that after the execution of Will and Codicil, during her lifetime, Mrs.Ida L Chambers sold the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited to A.Nagappa Chettiar. As such, the assets, which were owned by Ida L Chambers at the time of her death i.e. on 13-08-1968 alone can be the subject matter of her Will. It is an undisputed position of law that the Will of the Testator will operate upon his or her demise only in respect of the properties owned by the testator at the time of death. In the case on hand, Ida L Chambers did not own the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited at the time of her death.

32. The petitioner submits that it is further submitted that after the death of Ida L Chambers, the Executors renounced Executorship and thereafter the Advocate General & Official Trustee took possession of the assets by virtue of an order passed in O.P.156 of 1968. In fact, M/s.The Chrome Leather company Private Limited voluntarily informed Advocate General & Official Trustee regarding the movable assets of Ida L Chambers available at a Bungalow owned by the Chrome Leather Company Private Limited and thereafter alone, application in O.P.156/1968 was preferred by Advocate General & Official Trustee and the same had also been ordered on 23/08/1968. Thereafter, the Advocate General & Official Trustee filed O.P.178 of 1969 seeking the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will executed by Ida L Chambers and the same had also been ordered on 26/03/1970. It is worthwhile to mention that the aforesaid order of granting Letter of Administration is only in respect of the estates owned by Ida L Chambers at the time of her death. So, it is crystal clear that the properties owned by M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited cannot be the subject matter of the Letter of Administration granted in O.P.178 of 1969.

33. The petitioner submits that as per the WILL of Mr. George Alexander Chamber he had settled the properties only in favour of his 3rd Wife Mrs.Ida L Chamber and Roy Edwin Medcalf Son of his 2nd Wife and he had not bequeathed any properties in favour of his 1st wife since it was already settled much earlier. It is also further submitted that the aforesaid Mr.George Joseph Chambers, who allegedly claimed to be the son of K.H.Chambers, who is the son of Mr.George Alexander Chambers through his 1st wife, filed an application in A.No.3899 of 2007 to revoke the Letter of Administration granted in O.P.78 of 1969. The aforesaid application was dismissed with a specific observation that the said George Joseph Chambers is not at all a legal heir of Mrs.Ida L Chambers. The relevant portions of the aforesaid order is extracted for better appreciation:

“9. …… Since the parties are Christians, the applicant, even if assumed to be the son of Mr.K.H.Chambers, was not one of the heirs who could have succeeded to the estate of the Testatrix, but for the Will. If at all, anyone could have claimed a right by way of intestate succession, it was K.H.Chambers and his sisters or step-brother. None of them raised a little finger, during their life time about the Will in question. Therefore, it is not open to the applicant, who was not a heir to seek revocation of the letters of administration, since the person under whom he claims a right himself assert his right for 20 years from the date of the grant till the date of his death”

“13….. Moreover, the paternity of K.H.Chambers for the applicant is itself in doubt.”

By virtue of the aforesaid conclusion, it is crystal clear that the right of the 2nd respondent or his principal had not been established and hence the 2nd respondent has no locustandi to initiate any proceedings in respect of the estates of Ida L Chambers. The aforesaid order had not been challenged and hence the same is binding upon the 2nd respondent also.

a. It is also relevant to mention that the legal heirship certificate issued to Mr.George Joseph Chambers showing him as a Legal heir of K.H.Chambers was quashed by this Honourable court in W.P.33248 & 33249/2007. No appeal had been preferred as against the aforesaid order and no civil suit had been filed for declaration that Mr.George Joseph Chambers is the son of K.H.Chambers. Thus, Mr.George Joseph Chambers is not a legal heir of K.H.Chambers and hence, he had no right to proceed against any of the properties of Ida L Chambers.

b. The 2nd respondent herein wanted to initiate several proceedings only for the purpose of grabbing money from the petitioner herein. He has got track record of forging the documents and the 2nd respondent had fabricated the death certificates of K.H.Chambers and Ida L Chambers and in respect of which a charge sheet had also been filed against him and the same had also been taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram in C.C.1083/2012 and the same is pending trial. It is submitted that K.H. Chambers died on 04-06-1981 itself at Wycombe District, United Kingdom, but the 2nd Respondent created two fabricated death certificates as if K.H.Chambers died at Chennai on 24-11-1989. So, the 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant is a man of forging documents.

c. The petitioner submits that similarly, the 2nd respondent in collusion with his principal Late George Joseph Chamber had claimed the property situated at Thirusoolam Village, measuring to an extent of 83 acres as his ancestral properties. Subsequently it was revealed that the properties belong to Arulmigu Thirusoolanathar Temple and the Temple Gurukal had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, and the Hon’ble High Court, Madras had taken a serious note and had directed the CBCID to register a case as against the 2nd respondent and his principal and based on the same the CBCID Unit, Kancheepuram, had registered a case as against 2nd respondent and his principal. These aspects would clearly show the malafide and dishonest intention of the 2nd respondent in preferring the complaint.

d. The present first information report is liable to be quashed on the ground of abuse of process of law on the part of the 2nd respondent herein. After lodging the complaint in question, the 2nd respondent herein filed one after other complaints and sought for a direction from this Honourable court either for registration of the case or for transferring the matter from one agency to another agency. The 2nd respondent had filed Crl.O.P.8632 of 2011 for a direction to register a case by suppressing the earlier complaint and the same was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 26-04-2011. Later on, another complaint lodged with the same set of allegations and another Crl.O.P.19104 of 2014 was filed by the 2nd respondent herein before this Honourable court for a direction to register FIR and the same was dismissed on 23/07/2014 by this honourable court with a strong observation that

“11……. As rightly argued by the learned Additional public prosecutor, neither principal nor the petitioner have any locustandi to maintain any action against the actual Legal heirs of George Alexander Chambers. The property belonging to George Alexander Chambers had already been bequeathed to his third wife Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Metcalf Chambers who dealt with the same in accordance with the right available to them and the same was subsequently sold to the counter Petitioner Chrome Leather Company Limited, who have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and the right of peaceful possession and enjoyment of the counter petitioner is also recognised by this court in the earlier proceedings. This court has also in the earlier proceedings, denied the claim of the petitioner and his principal as devoid of any merit. However, the petitioner’s principal as well as the petitioner herein made successive applications on civil and original side and the criminal side with the identical allegations and the same were duly dealt with by the competent authority and by suppressing the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition, which amounts to shopping and abuse of process of law.”

e. It is submitted that there is already a determination by this honourable court that the 2nd respondent herein had abused the process of court. As such, abuse of process of law is also a ground to quash the present first information report.

f. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein also relied upon an alleged Will said to have been executed by his principal Mr.George Alexander Chamber and filed O.P.382 of 2010 before this honourable court for Probate and the same was initially allowed, but later on it had been revoked on an application filed by the alleged legal heirs of Mr.George Alexander Chamber. In the said order of revocation the Hon’ble High Court had heavily condemned the conduct of Quinton Dawson the second respondent herein and had observed that a prima facie case of fraud has been shown to the Court and the said probate order was revoked on the ground of suppression of the material, fraud and also for proper non citation by order dated 29.06.2012. Upon appeal in O.S.A.256/2012, the aforesaid OP was ordered to be converted as Testamentary Suit and accordingly, it had been numbered as T.O.S.7 of 2012. On 17/07/2018 T.O.S.7 of 2012 was also dismissed by this Honourable court and no appeal had been preferred so far and hence the aforesaid order became final. Under such circumstances, the 2nd respondent herein cannot claim any status either as a power agent of his principal or as an Executor of the alleged Will said to have been executed by Mr.George Joseph Chambers.

g. It is also needless to mention that Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar is a Padma Shree Awardee and he had also been called as Leather King. He established India Leather Corporation Private Limited as early in 1948 and he was the Managing Director of ILC. Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar was doing business all over the World particularly he was supplying 1/3rd of all the Japanese Leather needs in the year 1950 itself. Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar was closely associated with the Central Leather Research Institute since its inception in 1948. He was Chairman of the Institute’s Governing Council and also a member of the research council at various time periods. His significant contribution to the leather industry is changing the paradigm from exporting wet skins and hides of lower quality and semi-finished leather into fully finished leather and value-added leather products to other countries. His collaboration with academia enabled him to look for innovative ways to improve the quality of leather. He was awarded Padma Shri by Government of India in 1967 for his contributions to the leather industry. As such, the alleged plea of forgery against an eminent person that too after his death and after a lapse of more than 50 years, is nothing but an unlawful attempt on the part of the Defacto Complainant for the purpose of reaping unlawful gain.

h. It is further submitted that the acceptance of Tender submitted by VKK Charities had also been challenged by one Motherland Leathers before the District Munsif, Tambaram in O.S.3392 of 1993 and later on, the said suit was dismissed on 23-06-1994. So, after a long legal battle, the tender of V.K.K.Charities had been accepted. This suit is also another evidence to establish that there is no collusion or fraud in purchasing the shares by the petitioner herein from the Central Bank of India.

34. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein has no locustandi to initiate any proceedings in respect of the properties originally owned by Ida L Chambers as per the orders of this Honourable court in A.No.3899 of 2007 in O.P.178 of 1969 dated 08-07-2008 and Crl.O.P.No.19104 of 2014 dated 23-07-2014.

35. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein has lodged a complaint with the same set of allegations on various occasions and the same had been rejected on all occasions and hence the present FIR is also liable to be quashed.

36. The petitioner submits that the first respondent herein had registered the present first information report on the basis of the complaint , which were originally lodged by the 2nd respondent, without setting aside the order of closure of the case as Mistake of Fact by the jurisdictional Magistrate and hence the very registration of FIR itself is tainted with the illegality and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

37. The petitioner submits the allegation of the second respondent that the petitioner colluded with Late A.Nagappa Chettiar would itself prove that the above complaint is abuse of process of Law, since the said Nagappa Chettiar had died in the year 1982, and the petitioner herein participated in the public auction and had purchased the properties by clearing the mortgage in the year 1995. Absolutely their cannot be any conspiracy to exist.

38. The Petitioner submits that the respondent had alleged conspiracy as against the Petitioner in order to make out a case. The Petitioner submits that it is a prudent rule that the respondent has to analyze and specifically point out how the conspiracy had taken place, with details of date, time and place etc of such conspiracy having taken place and the meeting of minds to execute the theory of conspiracy. The Petitioner submits that the respondent had not stated that the Petitioner had conspired with any of the accused and there is not even an iota of evidence to show the aspect of conspiracy or that the Petitioner had conspired in committing the offences.

39. The Petitioner submits on the other hand even if it is to be assumed that the story of conspiracy has to be inferred from the circumstances, the perusal of the complaint does not show, under what circumstances, the Petitioner had conspired in any manner whatsoever. The Petitioner submits when the conspiracy has to be inferred from the circumstances, then the circumstances of a case should be cogent and should be in the form of an unbroken chain of circumstances, so as to establish the conspiracy that the Petitioner had in any point of time had personal relationship or contact. The Petitioner submits that the principles required to fasten the theory of conspiracy in case pertaining to circumstances are the averment should be in the formation of the chain and the chain of averment should not have missing links. The Petitioner submits that there is absolutely no averment available on the perusal of the complaint to establish the theory of conspiracy as against the Petitioner and in such event, the entire case resting on the theory of conspiracy has to be disbelieved as against the Petitioner.

40. The petitioner submits that the first respondent had failed to consider that the complaint had been lodged in respect of a transaction happened in the 1968 i.e. after the delay of 38 years and no explanation had been offered to that effect and hence the first information report is liable to be quashed.

41. The petitioner submits that the first respondent had failed to see the records of this Honourable court viz. the Affidavits sworn by Mrs.Ida L Chambers, whereby confirming the sale of shares in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar. When the vendor himself admits in judicial proceedings that she sold the shares, there is no question of forgery or fabrication or false document would arise.

42. The petitioner submits that first respondent had mechanically register the first information report without ascertaining the fact that the entire allegations on the face of it constitute only irregularities, which are civil in nature and hence no criminal case is made out.

43. The Petitioner submits that it is submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court of India time and again insisted that a civil case cannot be converted India criminal case and such a practice will have to be deprecated. On a mere perusal of the FIR, it clearly shows that the 2nd respondent alleged irregularities and hence no criminality is involved even as per the FIR.

44. The Petitioner submits that it is submitted that there is absolutely no allegation as if any false promise or inducement had been made by the petitioner herein and hence there is no question of attracting the alleged offence under section 420 IPC.

45. The Petitioner further submits that in order to attract the offences under section 455, 467, 468 and 471, there must be an element of forgery. The forgery is defined under section 463 IPC. According to 463 IPC, whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or with intent to commit fraud commits forgery. So, in order to constitute a forgery, that must be the creation of false document. Section 464 IPC defines what is a false document. Even it is not the case of the 2nd respondent that, the petitioner herein had made any false document. In the absence of any allegation against the petitioner regarding making of a false document, he cannot be termed as a person committed forgery. Once the necessary ingredients for forgery are absent on the face of it, there cannot be any purpose in proceeding with the investigation or trial and hence the other offences 465, 467, 468, 471 would not attract as far as the petitioner is concerned.

46. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the shares legally and based on the same the petitioner had owned the shares and the properties therein. Whileso, the 2nd respondent had given two complaints alleging fabrication in respect of the transfer of shares, which was legally done and in this present complaint the second respondent had come up with an allegation that the petitioner had usurped the properties by joining hands with the other accused, which is totally contrary. The petitioner submits when the properties had devolved on the petitioner based on the purchase of shares, the averments of the petitioner in the two complaints in respect of the same issue is highly artificial and is an abuse of process of Law.

47. The Petitioner submits that though the first respondent registered the case for the offence under section 120(B), there is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner herein had conspired to anybody. In the absence of any allegations regarding conspiracy, the petitioner cannot be charged for the offence under section 120(B) IPC.

48. The Petitioner submits that the first respondent had failed to consider that the petitioner herein is a purchaser through a valid legal tender issued by the Central Bank of India in pursuance of the directions of BIFR and the transaction took place in the year 1994 and the complaint had been lodged in the year 2006 the too pointing out some irregularities regarding the transactions happened in the 1968 in favour of Nagappa Chettiar and hence the present first information report is liable to be quashed.

49. The Petitioner submits that the first respondent had failed to note that the petitioner purchased the shares only from the Central Bank of India as per the court decree and the petitioner is only a court Auction purchaser and hence there is no question of criminality as far as the petitioner is concerned.

50. The Petitioner submits that the first respondent has failed to consider that the 2nd respondent lodged another complaint in respect of the same transactions on the same day of lodging the present complaint in question, wherein he came forward with a different version by saying that the petitioner herein unlawfully dealt with the properties, even after knowing the purchase by the petitioner from the Central Bank of India.
51. The 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant had lodged the complaint as a Power Agent of Mr.George Joseph Chambers and admittedly, George Joseph Chambers died in the year 2008. Under such circumstances, the proceedings cannot be continued at the instance of the 2nd Respondent, who has no locustandi after the death of his principal and hence the impugned FIR is liable to be setaside.
53. It is the specific case of the Defacto Complainant that since his principal was on High Seas, he could not initiate proceedings immediately, which is very much false. In fact, the alleged George Joseph Chambers was very much residing at Pallavaram and purchased properties and resided there from 1993 to 2004 and hence he is very much aware of the transactions had by the petitioner and the Central Bank of India and in such circumstances, the delay of initiation of proceedings itself prove that the defacto complainant had not come forward with false case and hence the FIR is liable to be quashed.
54. The Petitioner submits that the 2nd Respondent had given complaints — to the Revenue Authorities as well as to the Educational Authorities so as to the disturb the educational institutions functioning in the properties of the M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited time and again. So, the M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited and the Leaseholders had filed a civil Suit before this Hon’ble Court in C.S.422 of 2015 against the 2nd Respondent for the relief of Permanent injunction and for damages. Since the 2nd Respondent had sent one or other applications to various authorities by claiming title, without following the directions of this Hon’ble Court and by the Revenue Department, the said M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited suffered a lot in addressing the issues before various authorities time and again. So, the Petitioner-Company had also filed O.A.547 of 2015 in C.S.422 of 2015 before this Hon’ble Court seeking Temporary injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from making any representations slandering of title of the Petitioner-Company’s property without establishing his right and title in a competent court of law and interim injunction was granted by this Hon’ble Court on 21-05-2015. The aforesaid order is further extended on 22-07-2015 by this Hon’ble Court until further orders. The operative portion of the order is as follows:
“That the order of interim injunction granted in pursuance fo the order dated 21-05-2015 made in O.A.No.547 of 2015 restraining the Respondent/Defendant herein, or his men, agents or any one claiming under him from making any representations, complaints, or communication in any manner slandering of title of the applicants/plaintiffs property more fully described in the schedule to the plaint without establishing his right and title in a competent court of law generally and in particular to any public and/or authorities such as University Grants Commission, Medical Council of India, any other Ministries or Departments of the Government of India or the Government of Tamil NADU Local Authorities etc without first obtaining probate of the purported will of the late George Joseph Chambers and consequent declaration of title and recovery of possession of the properties morefully setout in the schedule hereunder before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction be and are hereby extended until further orders of this Hon’ble Court” Even on the face of the above order, it is clear that the issues are civil in nature and on that ground also, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
55. The Petitioner submits that the Educational institutions are functioning in the properties and the 1st Respondent at the instance of the 2nd Respondent is interfering with the functioning of the educational institutions and also disturbing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and hence it is necessary to stay the further proceedings in Crime No.2 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent herein, otherwise, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and grave hardship.

In the above circumstances it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarter, Chennai, the first respondent herein and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this the 5th day of August, 2020

Counsel for the petitioner

CHENNAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, MADRAS

Crl.O.P.No. / 2020

QUASH PETITION

Counsel for the Petitioner

N.SENTHILKUMAR,
K.SURESH (1518/2008)
No.266, Law Chambers,
High Court,
Chennai.

Email:

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Crl.O.P. No. of 2020

Against

Crime No.3 of 2016
(On the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarter, Chennai)

S.Jagathrakshakan,
Aged about 72 Years,
S/o.Swamikannu Gounder,
No.1, 1st Main Road, Kasthuribai Nagar,
Adyar,
Chennai-600020 … Petitioner/2nd Accused

Vs.
1. State by
Inspector of Police,
CBCID
Head Quarters-Chennai
Crime.No.03/2016. .. Respondent/Complainant

2. Q. Dawson,
Aged about 65 years,
S/o.G.E.Dawson,
Power Agent of
George Joseph Chambers (Late),
No.4/350,Kennedy Valley,
Moovarasampet,
Chennai-600091.
… Respondent/
Defacto Complainant

PETITION FOR QUASH

The address for service of process and notices on the petitioners is that of his counsel M/s.N.Senthilkumar & K.Suresh, Advocates, No.266, Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai.

The address for service of notices and processes on the respondents is as stated above.

The petitioner above named begs to prefer this Memorandum of Criminal Original Petition before this Hon’ble Court and prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No.3 of 2016, on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID Head Quarters, Chennai and may be pleased to quash the same for the following among other

G R O U N D S

1. The petitioner submits that the respondent herein had registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2016, for offences under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) I.P.C., based on the orders passed by the Hon’ble District Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in Crl.R.C.No.4 of 2014, as against the petitioner and 5 others. The petitioner has been arrayed as A-2.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the second respondent had originally preferred a complaint to the office of the Central Crime Branch, in the year 2007. The second respondent/de facto complainant is the power agent of Mr George Joseph Chambers, claiming himself as the only surviving legal heir of late George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers. The said Ida L Chambers owned 4997 equity shares of Rs.100/- each and 1800 Preferential shares of Rs.100/- each of M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited and since the principal of the second respondent was travelling on the high seas as an officer in Merchant Navy, he was not able to concentrate upon the properties and affairs of M/s.Chrome Leather Company and after his retirement upon verification, he came to know that the equity shares and Preferential shares were transferred in the name of Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar and he was representing M/s.Chrome Leather Company as Managing Director after the demise of Ida L Chambers and that the said A.Nagappa Chettiar was the root cause of spoiling the entire affairs of M/s.Chrome Leather Company and deposited the bogus share certificates in the Central Bank of India to obtain loans and the share certificates were pledged with the Central Bank of India though there was no liability or any outstanding loans against the company. The second respondent further had stated that the said Nagappa Chettiar had shown himself to represent as Managing Director of M/s.Chrome Leather Company as early as 1944, and had stated that the said Nagappa Chettiar had come to picture only after the demise of Mrs.Ida L Chambers.

3. The petitioner submits that the further facts is that Nagappa Chettiar not only mortgaged the properties belonging to M/s.Chrome Leather Company but also the private properties of G.A.Chambers and Ida L Chambers and the bank authorities did not follow the rules and regulations prescribed under Law and arbitrarily sanctioned the loan and the Central Bank of India filed a suit in O.S.314 of 1980 for a declaration and bringing the property for public auction and that the petitioner herein had purchased the equity shares after clearing the mortgage amount and had become the Managing Director of M/s.Chrome Leather Company. Earlier previously the bank authorities were looking after the affairs and that the petitioner without obtaining permission from the ROC, Company Law Board or from a competent Court had purchased the shares which ultra virus. Based on the same the second respondent had alleged that the petitioner had purchased the shares in collusion with A.Nagappa Chettiar knowing that the shares were fabricated and that the bank authorities without following the legal procedures and the sarfase Act had transferred the shares violating the rules before bringing the property to public auction and based on the same upon the aforesaid allegations, a case in Crime No.305/2007 was registered by the City Crime Branch X, Thousand Lights, Chennai on 20.06.2007, for offences under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) I.P.C.

4. The petitioner submits that Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, had started the investigation and had conducted the enquiries and examined the witnesses and later the Central Crime branch Police had filed a Final Report by concluding the case as one of Mistake of Fact. The aforesaid final report was duly filed before the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, Poonamallee and the second respondent had also was given opportunity to raise his objections, by giving due notice to the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee in C.M.P.4148 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 23/04/2009 and had accepted the final report filed as Mistake of Fact. As such, the aforesaid final report attained finality and no revision has been filed against the order of the Magistrate in accepting the final report of the Police.

5. The petitioner submits that after the aforesaid order and after a lapse of 3 years from the date of closure of the above case, based on the Suo-Muto order passed by the Additional Director General of Police, vide R.C.No.C6/8313/2012, the above said case was taken up for further investigation and the first respondent herein has filed an application for further investigation without producing any prima facie materials to show the need for further investigation, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.3914/2013, in the said proceedings the Legal heirs of George Joseph Chambers had also intervened and made their submissions. Later the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu had dismissed the petition filed by the first respondent seeking for further investigation on 26.02.2014.

6. The petitioner submits against the aforesaid dismissal, the first respondent herein had filed Crl.R.C.4 of 2014 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and the same was allowed on 11/08/2016. Based upon the aforesaid order, the first respondent has registered the present first information report in Cr.No.3 of 2016 by relying upon the same allegations levelled in the original complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. As such, the present case has been registered as against the petitioner herein and others for the offences under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) IPC on 21.11.2016.

7. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was also called for enquiry and the petitioner had co-operated in the enquiry and all the required documents as sought by the first respondent was also produced by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the above case after a period of nearly 7 years had been transferred to the file of the first respondent after the closure of the case in the year 2009. The petitioner submits that the petitioner did not prefer any revision and the petitioner to establish his bonafide, had co-operated in the enquiry. The above case is pending from the year 2016.

8. The petitioner submits that a perusal of the complaint itself would show that prima facie that there is no case as against the petitioner in order to attract the offences under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) IPC.

9. The petitioner submits that the entire allegation as per the complaint and the first information report revolves that the petitioner and the said Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar had colluded. The petitioner submits the said A.Nagappa Chettiar had died as early in the year 1982, and the bank authorities had brought the property for public auction and the petitioner herein being the authorized representative of V.K.K.Charities had participated in the bid and had purchased the property by clearing the mortgage loan in the year 1995, i..e, nearly after 13 years from the demise of the said A.Nagappa Chettiar, who is now shown as A-1 in the said complaint. This is a tip of iceberg to show that the entire complaint is false and has been preferred by the second respondent with an intention to harass the petitioner.

10. The petitioner herein summarizes the following facts for better appreciation:
a. Originally George Alexander Chambers, an Englishman, had three wives whom he married one after the other after each of the earlier wives died. The first wife was Ethel Mary Chambers, the 2nd wife was Margaret Agnes the 3rd wife was Ida Louisa Chambers. Through the first wife, George Alexander Chambers 3 children by name Kelland Huxford Chambers, Phyllis Dora Chambers and Sheila Dora Chambers. Through the 2nd wife, George Alexander Chambers had a son by name Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers. The 3rd wife Ida L Chambers had no issues.

b. Mr.George Alexander Chambers was carrying on the business in leather in the name of two proprietorship concerns viz. M/s.Chrome Leather Company & M/s.Chambers & Co. The said Mr George Alexander Chambers died on 16/11/1937 left behind a Will in favour of Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers and also appointed Executors. The aforesaid Will was probated before this Honourable court in O.P.57 of 1938. In the meanwhile, Ida L Chambers & the Executors of the Will constituted a limited liability company viz. M/s.Chrome Leather Company Private Limited by converting the aforesaid two proprietary concerns on 07/12/1943. The aforesaid company was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai and assigned with CIN U19113TN1943-PLC000421.
c. Thereafter, the aforesaid Executors and Ida L Chambers sold the 6immovable and movable properties to M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited by means of a registered sale deed dated 14/03/1944 under Doc.No.530/1944. The aforesaid sale deed was challenged by Roy Edwin Medclaf Chambers in a civil suit in C.S.46/1963. The aforesaid suit has been instituted as against Ida L Chambers. Mrs.Ida L Chambers also filed another suit in C.S.2 of 1964 as against Roy Edwin Medclaf Chambers seeking permission to effect a sale of 7000 shares in the Chrome Leather Company Private Limited . The aforesaid two suits were disposed of under a Common Compromise Decree dated 19-12-1965 in Application No.220 of 1965 in C.S.2 of 1964. The important terms of the decree as follows:

1. The Trust created as a result of the Will of the late George Alexander Chambers was put to an end. Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Medclaf Chambers and his heirs were to divide the corpus of the property so as to enable them to obtain an absolute estate in whatever properties they would hold thereafter.

2. Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers and members of his family were to be paid certain sums of money to maintain themselves, and until these sums were paid, there would be a Charge on the properties of the Chrome Leather Company Limited.

3. Ida L Chambers or the Chrome Leather Company Private Limited would be at liberty to pay the entire balance of any instalment mentioned therein at an early date.

4. In case there was a delay in the payment of instalments of a capital or interest by more than 3 months, the entire unpaid balance amount then due shall be payable forthwith and the parties shall be at liberty to collect the said amount from Ida L Chambers and The Chrome Leather Company Limited as a money decree.

5. Subject to the above payments, the balance of the property belonging to the trust or to M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited shall belong absolutely to Ida L Chambers.

6. The entire property of Ida L Chambers and of Chrome Leather Company Limited shall be a charge for the payment of any sums due under the decree.

11. The Petitioner submits that the aforesaid compromise was duly recorded and recognized by the court and consequently the decree was passed. The aforesaid decree has not been challenged by anybody and hence the aforesaid decree had become final.

12. The Petitioner submits that after the Compromise decree, Ida L Chambers entered into an agreement dated 21/04/1965 with A.Nagappa Chettiar with an intention to transfer her shareholdings in M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited. It is also needless to mention that the sale deed in favour of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited has not been cancelled or declared as void in the aforesaid civil litigations, on the other hand the sale in favour of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited has been recognized by this Honourable court and that is the reason why a charge has been created over the properties of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited. Since Ida L Chambers was the owner of the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited, she was very much entitled to transfer the shares as per her wish subject to the terms of compromise. Accordingly, she entered into an agreement for transferring the shares with A.Nagappa Chettiar.

13. As per the aforesaid Agreement, the purchaser A.Nagappa Chettiar was directed to pay a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs together with the interest thereon to Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers and his family members as per the Compromise Decree dated 19/02/1965. Thereafter, share certificates issued to A.Nagappa Chettiar with distinctive numbers totaling 4995 equity shares and 1800 Preference Shares. Immediate to the aforesaid sale, objection was raised by Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers by filing an Application No.2297 of 1965 in C.S.46 of 1963 on the ground that the charge created under the Compromise Decree was not registered with the Registrar of Companies. In the aforesaid application the following facts had been specifically admitted/mentioned by Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers:

1. In para 10 & 11 of the affidavit filed in Application No.2297/1965 in C.S.46/1963, it has been stated as “the scrutiny of the records with the Registrar further reveals that Mrs. Ida L Chambers has made over a good portion of her shares since the decree to the following persons who are now shown as directors along with her.
a. A.Nagappa Chettiar
b. N Umayal Achi
c. MN Arunahcalam Chettiar
d. K.Sampath.
“Of the above four, I reliably understand that the first mentioned person is the real purchaser of the shares and the rest are merely his nominees. I understand that she has collected substantial amounts by making over shareholdings to Sri.A.Nagappa Chettiar despite the shares being property charged with the decretal debt.

“11. Sri.Nagappa Chettiar is known to be one of the leaders of leather trade in as elsewhere having control over and owning a large number of factories and Tanneries. He is in full charge and control of the 2nd respondent company. There is none to prevent him from depleting the company of all its valuable assets by dispensing them to his other concerns and thus reducing the 2nd respondent into a mere shell of what it had in effect represented at the time of the decree”

14. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid contention of Mr.Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers clearly revealed a fact that he knew about the transfer of shares from Ida L Chambers to A.Nagappa Chettiar.

15. The petitioner further submits that Mrs. Ida L Chambers also filed counter in response to the Application No.2297/1965 in C.S.No.46/1963 and the relevant portion is as follows:

“7. With reference to the allegations made in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the affidavit, I state that I have sold all the shares except one to Sri.A.Nagappa Chettiar and 3 others who are all my co-directors in the company. This circumstance I submit cannot in any manner affect the rights of the applicant and his family with respect to the charge created over the company’s assets. I am not aware of the correctness or otherwise of the other allegations made against Nagappa Chettiar which in any event are totally irrelevant for the purpose of this application. Admittedly Nagappa Chettiar is in control over a number of factories and tanneries including the India Leather Corporation (P) limited, a well-known and established firm dealing in hides and skins and leather goods. The allegations against Sri.A.Nagappa Chettiar , whom the applicant has not chosen to make a party are scandalous and mischievous and defamatory and are merely introduced for ulterior purposes by interested parties. To the best of my knowledge, Sri.Nagappa Chettiar is one of the leading businessman and exporters in the trade, whom even the applicant has approached on more than one occasion for financial assistance.”

16. The petitioner submits that the above affidavit of Mrs.Ida L Chambers is another classical evidentiary document to show the transfer of shares from Ida L Chambers to Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar.

17. The petitioner further submits that the aforesaid application 2297 of 1965 was dismissed on 27 /09/1965 on the ground the application of Mr.Roy Edwin is a premature one. Later on, all the sums due to Mr.Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers and his family members were settled by M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited and accordingly, an affidavit was sworn by Mr.Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers in Application 757 of 1968 in C.S.2 of 1964 where by acknowledging the receipt of payment from M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited and the full satisfaction of decree had also been recorded before this Hon’ble Court. The aforesaid affidavit was sworn on 11-05-1968. As such the charge created by virtue of the Compromise Decree dated 19/02/1965 had been satisfied by M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited. By virtue of the aforesaid affidavit, it is crystal clear that Mr.Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers himself admitted the factum of transfer of shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited in favour of Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar. It is also necessary to mention that the change of shareholding in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar was also recorded with the Registrar Of Companies, Chennai.

18. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid affidavits of Mr.Roy Edwin and Mrs.Ida L Chambers clearly prove the fact that there could not have been any forgery of transfer deeds in respect of the shares in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar. When there was no allegation of forgery as early in the year 1968 by the concerned persons, there cannot be any plea of forgery to be taken by any other persons like the 2nd respondent herein, who is absolutely not competent.

19. The petitioner submits that it is also very relevant to mention that the transfer of shares in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar was very much brought to the notice of this Honourable Court as early in the year 1965.

20. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid two affidavits of Mr.Roy Edwin and Mrs.Ida L Chambers constitute statement under oath to the High Court and hence it spelt out the truth which cannot be challenged by the descendants of the aforesaid persons or any other persons especially when the Executant of the Transfer Deed had admitted the execution.

21. The petitioner submits that subsequent to the control over M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited, Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar availed credit facilities with the Central Bank of India, for which he pledged the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited and also mortgaged the properties belonging to M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited. It is also needless to mention that at the time of transfer of shares in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar, M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited owned only 67 acres of land alone.

22. The petitioner submits that it is also necessary to mention that as per the prevailed norms of Reserve Bank of India at the relevant time, the shares pleaded by A.Nagappa Chettiar were also transferred in the name of the bank on 20/07/1977. Since the company defaulted in making payment, the Central Bank of India filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu in O.S.314/1980. Later on, the compromise was recorded between the parties and accordingly a preliminary decree passed on the basis of a compromise in I.A.614 of 1981 in O.S.314/1980 on 19/10/1981. As per the decree, the Central Bank of India was entitled to transfer 4995 equity shares and 1800 preference shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited. Thereafter, the aforesaid judgement was not challenged by anybody and attained finality. Since the company was sustained losses, it has been referred to BIFR. In spite of so many efforts, there was no possibility for any rehabilitation. So, BIFR Bench prima facie concluded that the company had to be wound up in terms of the provisions of section 20 of the Act vide order dated 15-04-1991. Thereafter, Workers’ Union filed W.P.8150/1991 before this Honourable court challenging the order of BIFR and interim stay was also granted. In the meanwhile the Central Bank of India in order to realise its dues published notice on 27/06/1993 inviting tenders from the prospective buyers for purchase of the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited.

23. The petitioner submits that M/s.VKK Charities made their bid and finally they had been declared as successful bidder. Though the old promoters of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited filed the writ petitions in order to stall the auction proceedings, they have not succeeded in their attempt. Later on, the bid of M/s.VKK Charities was confirmed. It has been represented by the new promoters before the BIFR that they want to rehabilitate the company without resorting to the sale of lands. Though the old promoters raised objection regarding the action of the Central Bank of India in selling the shares, BIFR bench overruled the objections raised by the old promoters and recognised the proposal given by VKK Charities as an alternative to the winding up of the company and accordingly BIFR appointed Central Bank of India as operating agency to examine the proposed revival scheme submitted by the new promoters treating it as a proposal for a change of management vide order dated 18-10-1994. As per the order of the BIFR, the issue had been addressed by the Central Bank of India. After examining all the aspects, the Central Bank of India had come to a conclusion that VKK Charities had proved their capacity for bringing in funds for a start-up operations and the proposed scheme was viable. It is also interesting to note that the workers union supported the proposal of the new promoters and they have also withdrawn the writ filed by them and later their dues had also been settled.

24. The petitioner submits that it is further submitted that the old promoters had challenged the order of the BIFR before the AAIFR and the same has also been dismissed. Later on, VKK Charities nominated Mr.S.Jagathrakshakan, who is the petitioner herein, to the Board of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited vide letter dated 29-05-1995 and nominated Mr.S.Jagathrakshakan for receiving transfer of shares in his own name and also nominated him as a Director of the company. . It has also been informed to BIFR and only upon the direction of BIFR, the petitioner has made the payment to the Central Bank of India. The Central Bank of India accepted the nominations and executed necessary share transfer deeds transferring 4995 equity shares in the name of S.Jagathrakshakan. So, a valid transfer effected as per the instructions of BIFR by the Central Bank of India in favour of S.Jagathrakshakan . The Central Bank of India had also realised its dues and issued No Due Certificate to that effect. As such, the transfer of shares either in favour of Nagappa Chettiar or in favour of S.Jagathrakshakan did not involve any forgery or fabrication and all the transfers had been effected either with the permission of the court or it had been recognised by the court in collateral proceedings.
25. The petitioner submits that the de facto complainant had alleged forgery in his complaint against Nagappa Chettiar , he had not provided any details as to how the forgery happened and when the forgery happened. In the absence of any details regarding the alleged forgery, the present FIR is liable to be quashed on the simple ground that the transfer in favour of Nagappa Chettiar had been clearly admitted by Mrs.Ida L Chambers and Mr. Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers before this Honourable court in an affidavit as early in the year 1968.

26. The petitioner submits that when there is no question of forgery and the execution of transfer is admitted by the parties concerned, the de facto complainant has no locustandi to challenge those transfer under the guise of forgery in a criminal proceedings.

27. The petitioner submits that even on a mere perusal of the first information report, the de facto complainant alleges only about irregularities and the same cannot be the basis for initiating criminal proceedings. All the alleged irregularities are absolutely civil in nature and the same cannot be converted into a criminal case.

28. The petitioner submits that it is also needless to mention that after the closure of the complaint in crime number 305 of 2007, another complaint has been lodged by the 2nd respondent herein with the same set of allegations and consequently he filed Crl.O.P.19104 of 2014 for a direction to register FIR. Upon hearing the aforesaid petition, this Honourable court had dismissed the petition on the ground that neither the principal nor the 2nd respondent herein have any locustandi to maintain any action against the actual legal heirs of George Alexander Chambers and also concluded that the property belonging to George Alexander chambers had already been bequeathed to his 3rd wife Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Medcalf Chambers who dealt with the same in accordance with the right available to them and the same was subsequently sold to M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited and the 2nd respondent herein abused the process of court and dismissed the petition vide order dated 23-07-2014.

29. The petitioner submits that it is also submitted that the registration of present first information report on the basis of an instruction for further investigation with the permission of the Magistrate is against Law especially when the earlier final report was filed before the court and the accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate and recorded the same as Mistake of Fact. It is submitted that the order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate is a judicial order and hence the same can be reversible only by the order of any higher forum after setting aside the order of the Magistrate. In the case on hand, the order of the Magistrate accepting the final report of the Police had attained finality and the same had not been challenged by anybody before the revisional or appellate court. So, the very basis of registration of FIR for the purpose of further investigation is absolutely illegal.

30. The petitioner submits that it is a settled position of law that “The Magistrate while passing the order, exercised his judicial mind and discretion, and unless that order is set aside, the re-investigation of the case on the same complaint is an illegality”.

31. The petitioner submits that it is also submitted that the 2nd respondent herein had lodged another complaint along with the present complaint in question, wherein he alleged a different version by saying that the properties were unlawfully illegally medalled by the petitioner herein along with others and the records had been manipulated for inducting the name of the petitioner and others in the name of George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers. The aforesaid version is quite contra to the forgery plea adopted in the present complaint and the allegation that the certificates had been forged by A.Nagappa Chettiar. Whereas, it is crystal clear admission by the 2nd respondent that the compromise was recorded on 19/02/1965. When this fact has been admitted, either the 2nd respondent herein or his principal cannot be termed as a legal heir of Ida L Chambers as per Indian Succession Act in the matter of succession of Christians.

32. The petitioner submits that it is further submitted that Mrs.Ida L Chambers had executed a Will dated 29-10-1949 & Codicil dated 03-06-1950. Mrs.Ida L Chambers died on 13-08-1968. She appointed the Chartered bank as the executor of the Will. It is worthwhile to mention that after the execution of Will and Codicil, during her lifetime, Mrs.Ida L Chambers sold the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Limited to A.Nagappa Chettiar. As such, the assets, which were owned by Ida L Chambers at the time of her death i.e. on 13-08-1968 alone can be the subject matter of her Will. It is an undisputed position of law that the Will of the Testator will operate upon his or her demise only in respect of the properties owned by the testator at the time of death. In the case on hand, Ida L Chambers did not own the shares of M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited at the time of her death.

33. The petitioner submits that it is further submitted that after the death of Ida L Chambers, the Executors renounced Executorship and thereafter the Advocate General & Official Trustee took possession of the assets by virtue of an order passed in O.P.156 of 1968. In fact, M/s.The Chrome Leather company Private Limited voluntarily informed Advocate General & Official Trustee regarding the movable assets of Ida L Chambers available at a Bungalow owned by the Chrome Leather Company Private Limited and thereafter alone, application in O.P.156/1968 was preferred by Advocate General & Official Trustee and the same had also been ordered on 23/08/1968. Thereafter, the Advocate General & Official Trustee filed O.P.178 of 1969 seeking the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will executed by Ida L Chambers and the same had also been ordered on 26/03/1970. It is worthwhile to mention that the aforesaid order of granting Letter of Administration is only in respect of the estates owned by Ida L Chambers at the time of her death. So, it is crystal clear that the properties owned by M/s.The Chrome Leather Company Private Limited cannot be the subject matter of the Letter of Administration granted in O.P.178 of 1969.

34. The petitioner submits that as per the WILL of Mr. George Alexander Chamber he had settled the properties only in favour of his 3rd Wife Mrs.Ida L Chamber and Roy Edwin Medcalf Son of his 2nd Wife and he had not bequeathed any properties in favour of his 1st wife since it was already settled much earlier. It is also further submitted that the aforesaid Mr.George Joseph Chambers, who allegedly claimed to be the son of K.H.Chambers, who is the son of Mr.George Alexander Chambers through his 1st wife, filed an application in A.No.3899 of 2007 to revoke the Letter of Administration granted in O.P.78 of 1969. The aforesaid application was dismissed with a specific observation that the said George Joseph Chambers is not at all a legal heir of Mrs.Ida L Chambers. The relevant portions of the aforesaid order is extracted for better appreciation:

“9. …… Since the parties are Christians, the applicant, even if assumed to be the son of Mr.K.H.Chambers, was not one of the heirs who could have succeeded to the estate of the Testatrix, but for the Will. If at all, anyone could have claimed a right by way of intestate succession, it was K.H.Chambers and his sisters or step-brother. None of them raised a little finger, during their life time about the Will in question. Therefore, it is not open to the applicant, who was not a heir to seek revocation of the letters of administration, since the person under whom he claims a right himself assert his right for 20 years from the date of the grant till the date of his death”

“13….. Moreover, the paternity of K.H.Chambers for the applicant is itself in doubt.”

By virtue of the aforesaid conclusion, it is crystal clear that the right of the 2nd respondent or his principal had not been established and hence the 2nd respondent has no locustandi to initiate any proceedings in respect of the estates of Ida L Chambers. The aforesaid order had not been challenged and hence the same is binding upon the 2nd respondent also.

a. It is also relevant to mention that the legal heirship certificate issued to Mr.George Joseph Chambers showing him as a Legal heir of K.H.Chambers was quashed by this Honourable court in W.P.33248 & 33249/2007. No appeal had been preferred as against the aforesaid order and no civil suit had been filed for declaration that Mr.George Joseph Chambers is the son of K.H.Chambers. Thus, Mr.George Joseph Chambers is not a legal heir of K.H.Chambers and hence, he had no right to proceed against any of the properties of Ida L Chambers.

b. The 2nd respondent herein wanted to initiate several proceedings only for the purpose of grabbing money from the petitioner herein. He has got track record of forging the documents and the 2nd respondent had fabricated the death certificates of K.H.Chambers and Ida L Chambers and in respect of which a charge sheet had also been filed against him and the same had also been taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram in C.C.1083/2012 and the same is pending trial. It is submitted that K.H. Chambers died on 04-06-1981 itself at Wycombe District, United Kingdom, but the 2nd Respondent created two fabricated death certificates as if K.H.Chambers died at Chennai on 24-11-1989. So, the 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant is a man of forging documents.

c. The petitioner submits that similarly, the 2nd respondent in collusion with his principal Late George Joseph Chamber had claimed the property situated at Thirusoolam Village, measuring to an extent of 83 acres as his ancestral properties. Subsequently it was revealed that the properties belong to Arulmigu Thirusoolanathar Temple and the Temple Gurukal had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, and the Hon’ble High Court, Madras had taken a serious note and had directed the CBCID to register a case as against the 2nd respondent and his principal and based on the same the CBCID Unit, Kancheepuram, had registered a case as against 2nd respondent and his principal. These aspects would clearly show the malafide and dishonest intention of the 2nd respondent in preferring the complaint.

d. The present first information report is liable to be quashed on the ground of abuse of process of law on the part of the 2nd respondent herein. After lodging the complaint in question, the 2nd respondent herein filed one after other complaints and sought for a direction from this Honourable court either for registration of the case or for transferring the matter from one agency to another agency. The 2nd respondent had filed Crl.O.P.8632 of 2011 for a direction to register a case by suppressing the earlier complaint and the same was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 26-04-2011. Later on, another complaint lodged with the same set of allegations and another Crl.O.P.19104 of 2014 was filed by the 2nd respondent herein before this Honourable court for a direction to register FIR and the same was dismissed on 23/07/2014 by this honourable court with a strong observation that

“11……. As rightly argued by the learned Additional public prosecutor, neither principal nor the petitioner have any locustandi to maintain any action against the actual Legal heirs of George Alexander Chambers. The property belonging to George Alexander Chambers had already been bequeathed to his third wife Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Metcalf Chambers who dealt with the same in accordance with the right available to them and the same was subsequently sold to the counter Petitioner Chrome Leather Company Limited, who have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and the right of peaceful possession and enjoyment of the counter petitioner is also recognised by this court in the earlier proceedings. This court has also in the earlier proceedings, denied the claim of the petitioner and his principal as devoid of any merit. However, the petitioner’s principal as well as the petitioner herein made successive applications on civil and original side and the criminal side with the identical allegations and the same were duly dealt with by the competent authority and by suppressing the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition, which amounts to shopping and abuse of process of law.”

e. It is submitted that there is already a determination by this honourable court that the 2nd respondent herein had abused the process of court. As such, abuse of process of law is also a ground to quash the present first information report.

f. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein also relied upon an alleged Will said to have been executed by his principal Mr.George Alexander Chamber and filed O.P.382 of 2010 before this honourable court for Probate and the same was initially allowed, but later on it had been revoked on an application filed by the alleged legal heirs of Mr.George Alexander Chamber. In the said order of revocation the Hon’ble High Court had heavily condemned the conduct of Quinton Dawson the second respondent herein and had observed that a prima facie case of fraud has been shown to the Court and the said probate order was revoked on the ground of suppression of the material, fraud and also for proper non citation by order dated 29.06.2012. Upon appeal in O.S.A.256/2012, the aforesaid OP was ordered to be converted as Testamentary Suit and accordingly, it had been numbered as T.O.S.7 of 2012. On 17/07/2018 T.O.S.7 of 2012 was also dismissed by this Honourable court and no appeal had been preferred so far and hence the aforesaid order became final. Under such circumstances, the 2nd respondent herein cannot claim any status either as a power agent of his principal or as an Executor of the alleged Will said to have been executed by Mr.George Joseph Chambers.

g. It is also needless to mention that Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar is a Padma Shree Awardee and he had also been called as Leather King. He established India Leather Corporation Private Limited as early in 1948 and he was the Managing Director of ILC. Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar was doing business all over the World particularly he was supplying 1/3rd of all the Japanese Leather needs in the year 1950 itself. Mr.A.Nagappa Chettiar was closely associated with the Central Leather Research Institute since its inception in 1948. He was Chairman of the Institute’s Governing Council and also a member of the research council at various time periods. His significant contribution to the leather industry is changing the paradigm from exporting wet skins and hides of lower quality and semi-finished leather into fully finished leather and value-added leather products to other countries. His collaboration with academia enabled him to look for innovative ways to improve the quality of leather. He was awarded Padma Shri by Government of India in 1967 for his contributions to the leather industry. As such, the alleged plea of forgery against an eminent person that too after his death and after a lapse of more than 50 years, is nothing but an unlawful attempt on the part of the Defacto Complainant for the purpose of reaping unlawful gain.

h. It is further submitted that the acceptance of Tender submitted by VKK Charities had also been challenged by one Motherland Leathers before the District Munsif, Tambaram in O.S.3392 of 1993 and later on, the said suit was dismissed on 23-06-1994. So, after a long legal battle, the tender of V.K.K.Charities had been accepted. This suit is also another evidence to establish that there is no collusion or fraud in purchasing the shares by the petitioner herein from the Central Bank of India.

35. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein has no locustandi to initiate any proceedings in respect of the properties originally owned by Ida L Chambers as per the orders of this Honourable court in A.No.3899 of 2007 in O.P.178 of 1969 dated 08-07-2008 and Crl.O.P.No.19104 of 2014 dated 23-07-2014.

36. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein has lodged a complaint with the same set of allegations on various occasions and the same had been rejected on all occasions and hence the present FIR is also liable to be quashed.

37. The petitioner submits that the first respondent herein had registered the present first information report on the basis of the complaint , which were originally lodged by the 2nd respondent, without setting aside the order of closure of the case as Mistake of Fact by the jurisdictional Magistrate and hence the very registration of FIR itself is tainted with the illegality and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

38. The petitioner submits the allegation of the second respondent that the petitioner colluded with Late A.Nagappa Chettiar would itself prove that the above complaint is abuse of process of Law, since the said Nagappa Chettiar had died in the year 1982, and the petitioner herein participated in the public auction and had purchased the properties by clearing the mortgage in the year 1995. Absolutely their cannot be any conspiracy to exist.

39. The Petitioner submits that the respondent had alleged conspiracy as against the Petitioner in order to make out a case. The Petitioner submits that it is a prudent rule that the respondent has to analyse and specifically point out how the conspiracy had taken place, with details of date, time and place etc of such conspiracy having taken place and the meeting of minds to execute the theory of conspiracy. The Petitioner submits that the respondent had not stated that the Petitioner had conspired with any of the accused and there is not even an iota of evidence to show the aspect of conspiracy or that the Petitioner had conspired in committing the offences.

40. The Petitioner submits on the other hand even if it is to be assumed that the story of conspiracy has to be inferred from the circumstances, the perusal of the complaint does not show, under what circumstances, the Petitioner had conspired in any manner whatsoever. The Petitioner submits when the conspiracy has to be inferred from the circumstances, then the circumstances of a case should be cogent and should be in the form of an unbroken chain of circumstances, so as to establish the conspiracy that the Petitioner had in any point of time had personal relationship or contact. The Petitioner submits that the principles required to fasten the theory of conspiracy in case pertaining to cirumstances are the averment should be in the formation of the chain and the chain of averment should not have missing links. The Petitioner submits that there is absolutely no averment available on the perusal of the complaint to establish the theory of conspiracy as against the Petitioner and in such event, the entire case resting on the theory of conspiracy has to be disbelieved as against the Petitioner.

41. The petitioner submits that the first respondent had failed to consider that the complaint had been lodged in respect of a transaction happened in the 1968 i.e. after the delay of 38 years and no explanation had been offered to that effect and hence the first information report is liable to be quashed.

42. The petitioner submits that the first respondent had failed to see the records of this Honourable court viz. the Affidavits sworn by Mrs.Ida L Chambers, whereby confirming the sale of shares in favour of A.Nagappa Chettiar. When the vendor himself admits in judicial proceedings that she sold the shares, there is no question of forgery or fabrication or false document would arise.

43. The petitioner submits that first respondent had mechanically register the first information report without ascertaining the fact that the entire allegations on the face of it constitute only irregularities, which are civil in nature and hence no criminal case is made out.

44. The Petitioner submits that it is submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court of India time and again insisted that a civil case cannot be converted India criminal case and such a practice will have to be deprecated. On a mere perusal of the FIR, it clearly shows that the 2nd respondent alleged irregularities and hence no criminality is involved even as per the FIR.

45. The Petitioner submits that it is submitted that there is absolutely no allegation as if any false promise or inducement had been made by the petitioner herein and hence there is no question of attracting the alleged offence under section 420 IPC.

46. The Petitioner further submits that in order to attract the offences under section 455, 467, 468 and 471, there must be an element of forgery. The forgery is defined under section 463 IPC. According to 463 IPC, whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or with intent to commit fraud commits forgery. So, in order to constitute a forgery, that must be the creation of false document. Section 464 IPC defines what is a false document. Even it is not the case of the 2nd respondent that, the petitioner herein had made any false document. In the absence of any allegation against the petitioner regarding making of a false document, he cannot be termed as a person committed forgery. Once the necessary ingredients for forgery are absent on the face of it, there cannot be any purpose in proceeding with the investigation or trial and hence the other offences 465, 467, 468, 471 would not attract as far as the petitioner is concerned.

47. The Petitioner submits that though the first respondent registered the case for the offence under section 120(B), there is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner herein had conspired to anybody. In the absence of any allegations regarding conspiracy, the petitioner cannot be charged for the offence under section 120(B) IPC.

48. The Petitioner submits that the first respondent had failed to consider that the petitioner herein is a purchaser through a valid legal tender issued by the Central Bank of India in pursuance of the directions of BIFR and the transaction took place in the year 1994 and the complaint had been lodged in the year 2006 the too pointing out some irregularities regarding the transactions happened in the 1968 in favour of Nagappa Chettiar and hence the present first information report is liable to be quashed.

49. The Petitioner submits that the first respondent had failed to note that the petitioner purchased the shares only from the Central Bank of India as per the court decree and the petitioner is only a court Auction purchaser and hence there is no question of criminality as far as the petitioner is concerned.

50. The Petitioner submits that the first respondent has failed to consider that the 2nd respondent lodged another complaint in respect of the same transactions on the same day of lodging the present complaint in question, wherein he came forward with a different version by saying that the petitioner herein unlawfully dealt with the properties, even after knowing the purchase by the petitioner from the Central Bank of India.
51. The 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant had lodged the complaint as a Power Agent of Mr.George Joseph Chambers and admittedly, George Joseph Chambers died in the year 2008. Under such circumstances, the proceedings cannot be continued at the instance of the 2nd Respondent, who has no locustandi after the death of his principal and hence the impugned FIR is liable to be setaside.
52. It is the specific case of the Defacto Complainant that since his principal was on High Seas, he could not initiate proceedings immediately, which is very much false. In fact, the alleged George Joseph Chambers was very much residing at Pallavaram and purchased properties and resided there from 1993 to 2004 and hence he is very much aware of the transactions had by the petitioner and the Central Bank of India and in such circumstances, the delay of initiation of proceedings itself prove that the defacto complainant had not come forward with false case and hence the FIR is liable to be quashed.
53. The Petitioner submits that the 2nd Respondent had given complaints — to the Revenue Authorities as well as to the Educational Authorities so as to the disturb the educational institutions functioning in the properties of the M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited time and again. So, the M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited and the Leaseholders had filed a civil Suit before this Hon’ble Court in C.S.422 of 2015 against the 2nd Respondent for the relief of Permanent injunction and for damages. Since the 2nd Respondent had sent one or other applications to various authorities by claiming title, without following the directions of this Hon’ble Court and by the Revenue Department, the said M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited suffered a lot in addressing the issues before various authorities time and again. So, the Petitioner-Company had also filed O.A.547 of 2015 in C.S.422 of 2015 before this Hon’ble Court seeking Temporary injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from making any representations slandering of title of the Petitioner-Company’s property without establishing his right and title in a competent court of law and interim injunction was granted by this Hon’ble Court on 21-05-2015. The aforesaid order is further extended on 22-07-2015 by this Hon’ble Court until further orders. The operative portion of the order is as follows:
“That the order of interim injunction granted in pursuance fo the order dated 21-05-2015 made in O.A.No.547 of 2015 restraining the Respondent/Defendant herein, or his men, agents or any one claiming under him from making any representations, complaints, or communication in any manner slandering of title of the applicants/plaintiffs property more fully described in the schedule to the plaint without establishing his right and title in a competent court of law generally and in particular to any public and/or authorities such as University Grants Commission, Medical Council of India, any other Ministries or Departments of the Government of India or the Government of Tamil NADU Local Authorities etc without first obtaining probate of the purported will of the late George Joseph Chambers and consequent declaration of title and recovery of possession of the properties morefully setout in the schedule hereunder before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction be and are hereby extended until further orders of this Hon’ble Court” Even on the face of the above order, it is clear that the issues are civil in nature and on that ground also, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

54. The Petitioner submits that the Educational institutions are functioning in the properties and the 1st Respondent at the instance of the 2nd Respondent is interfering with the functioning of the educational institutions and also disturbing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and hence it is necessary to stay the further proceedings in Cr.No.3 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent herein, otherwise, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and grave hardship.

In the above circumstances it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime.No.3 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Head Quarter, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this the day of August, 2020

Counsel for the petitioner

CHENNAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, MADRAS

Crl.O.P.No. / 2020

QUASH

Counsel for the Petitioner

N.SENTHILKUMAR,
K.SURESH (1518/2008)
No.266, Law Chambers,
High Court,
Chennai.

Email:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME