Venkatramanan Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

The petitioners/A1 & A2 in C.C.No.4138 of 2020 facing trial for offence under Sections 406, 408, 420 & 506(i) r/w 120B IPC before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate exclusive Trial for CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, have filed this Quash Petition.

¶27

2.Case of the prosecution is that the 2 nd respondent authorised by Mr.Dilip Vellodi, Director of M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited, lodged a compliant stating that M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited company registered under Registrar of Companies in the year 2006 which is involved in construction activities for residential and commercial buildings, promoting layouts and in the real estate business. Mr.Muthu Narayanan is the one of the Director of the Company and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam, a close relative of said Mr.Muthu Narayanan associated with the Company for looking after the financial aspects of the Company. The Company was in need of 20 acres of land parcel in Perumbakkam Village near Pallikaranai and the Company

¶28

Page No.2 of 16

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025 authorised Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam to find out lands and to make payments. Mr.Muthu Narayanan to identify land parcels brought in Mr.S.Venkataramanan and Mr.Kamalesh Kumar Seth (petitioners), land brokers to identify and procure land parcels in the said locality. Thereafter, land to an extent of 19.575 acres extending in various survey numbers at Perumbakkam Village procured during the period 2006 to 2010. Out of 19.575 acres, 2.15 acres of land in survey Nos.265/3, 266/4, 297 & 298 purchased by the Company vide sale deed in document Nos.10478 of 2007, 8395 of 2007 and 4469 of 2007, totalling to a sum of Rs.3,48,34,200/- was sold to third person. Keeping Company in dark, Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the petitioners and sold 2.15 acres of land to one M/s.Varun Manian Reality & Constructions Private Limited for a sum of Rs.2,57,00,000/- vide sale deed in document No.8177 of 2011 and 1752 of 2012. Though the Company purchased the said land of 2.15 acres for a sum of Rs.3,48,34,200/-, these properties sold at lesser price showing it as distress sale for Rs.2,57,00,000/-, thereby, caused wrongful loss of Rs.91,34,200/-. Apart from this transaction, the petitioners in connivance with Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam received a sum of Rs.1,77,50,000/- and out of Rs.2,57,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,54,40,000/- was re-routed to the 1 st petitioner

¶31

Page No.3 of 16

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025 by three separate cheques bearing Nos.489635 dated 21.11.2011 for Rs.1,60,00,000/-, cheque bearing No.489636 dated 08.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.14,40,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.489637 dated 12.03.2012 for a sum of Rs.80,000/- through Axis Bank, G.N.Chetty Road projecting that these amounts would be used for procuring alternate lands in the name of Company. But thereafter they neither purchased any land nor returned the amount, thereby, committed misappropriation and cheating to the tune of Rs.5,23,00,000/-. Hence, on the complaint received on 01.08.2015, FIR in Crime No.304 of 2015 registered for offence under Sections 406, 408, 420 & 506(i) r/w 120B IPC.

¶34

3.On conclusion of investigation, it was found that Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam informed the Directors of M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited about the transactions with the petitioners and there was no criminality in their action, hence, both of them deleted from the case and charge sheet filed against the petitioners alone. It was also found that Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Dilip Vellodi were Partners in Sutherland Global Services, a Company registered in New York, USA and there was claim and counter claim between them in USA Courts as early as 25.03.2015 and the present compliant lodged five months thereafter on

¶35

Page No.4 of 16

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025 01.08.2015. Further it was found that the petitioners having received the money for sale of 2.15 acres to M/s.Varun Manian Realty & Constructions Private Limited and undertook to buy alternate site, but failed, hence, investigation proceeded and charge sheet filed against the petitioners arraying them as A1 & A2. In the charge sheet, LW1 to LW11 listed along with documents.

¶38

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a reading of the complaint and charge sheet in this case would prove that the dispute between the petitioner and 2 nd respondent is only civil in nature arising during business transaction between them. In fact the 2 nd respondent and the petitioners are close relatives. There was misunderstanding and dispute between Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Dilip Vellodi and case in USA Court initiated. In the crossfire, finding petitioners are close to one of the rival party against the 2 nd respondent, they are falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners explained the modus of business transaction, how the properties purchased and for what reason 2.15 acres sold, otherwise further loss would have happened, hence, to avert and minimise the loss, the property sold to M/s.Varun Manian Realty & Construction Private Limited, collected the money and accounted, further, alternate site shown to the 2 nd respondent and it was agreed to proceed with the

¶39

Page No.5 of 16

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025 alternate site. On such explanation and production of relevant documents by the petitioners, the 2 nd respondent agreed and compromised the issue with the petitioners. Now, a Joint Compromise Memo dated 21.07.2025 signed by the 2nd respondent, Authorized Signatory and the petitioners filed before this Court. Hence, prays for quashing the case based on the compromise.

¶42

5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent Police submitted that the 2 nd respondent, Authorized Representative of M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited lodged a complaint on 01.08.2015 stating that the petitioners along with Mr.Muthunarayanan, one of the Director of the said Company and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sathasivam, a close relative of Mr.Muthunarayanan, looking into the accounts of the Company, all joined together during the period 2006-2010 purchased vast track of lands to the extent of 19.575 acres in Perumbakkam Village, Pallikaranai. Though the lands were to be purchased in one block, 2.15 acres alone purchased in a far of place from other lands, hence, the project could not take off as planned. Later it was agreed that this 2.15 acres to be sold and proportionate land adjacent to existing property to be purchased. The petitioners/land brokers projected that this 2.15 acres could not be sold immediately on the same value of purchase and they informed that the market is on the downslide and any delay would

¶43

Page No.6 of 16

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025 cause further loss, hence, as a distress sale with a lesser value to the purchase,

¶46

2.15 acres sold, later doubts caused on the sale and reverse flow suspected between the petitioners and the purchaser of 2.15 acres. The petitioners received the sale amount, not accounted properly, failed to purchase equivalent land adjacent to existing property, nor paid back the money, hence, a complaint lodged by the 2 nd respondent.

¶47

6.He further submitted that during investigation it was found Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam (A1 & A2) informed the Company at all stage of negotiation and thereafter decision taken to sell 2.15 acres of land. During investigation there was some dispute among the Directors, earlier to the present complaint already there was case filed between warring Directors in USA and some motivation prevailed between the Directors, hence, the names of A1 and A2 in the FIR deleted. As regards the petitioners, though they claimed that they could purchase equivalent land of 2.15 acres, neither purchased the land nor returned the amount, hence, investigation concluded and charge sheet filed against the petitioners arraying them as A1 & A2.

¶48

Page No.7 of 16

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025 nd 7.He further submitted that now the petitioners and 2 respondent entered into a compromise and the 1 st respondent Police received the compromise deed and the copy of the same produced before this Court. He fairly submitted that misappropriation and cheating took place in course of business transaction. Now the 2 nd respondent agreed for compromise, the compromise verified and it was found to be true and genuine.

¶51

8.Considering the submissions and perusal of the materials, it is seen that the issue between the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent stems from a commercial dispute arising out of business transaction between them. Now the petitioners and 2 nd respondent resolved the issue, Joint Compromise Memo dated 21.07.2025 produced before this Court. To confirm the same, this Court interacted with the signatory to the joint compromise memo namely Mr.K.S.Kumar, Authorized Signatory/2nd respondent and Mr.Dilip Vellodi and Mr.Kiran Thomas, Directors of M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited who appeared before this Court. The Directors of M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited confirmed the Joint Compromise and produced the copy of resolution passed in the board meeting on 15.07.2025 accepting the joint compromise memo and authorizing withdrawal of the complaint.

¶52

Page No.8 of 16

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

¶55

9.Scanned reproduction of the Joint Memo of Compromise dated

¶56

21.07.2025 and Resolution dated 15.07.2025 are as follows:

¶57

Page No.9 of 16

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

¶60

Page No.10 of 16

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

¶63

Page No.11 of 16

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

¶66

Page No.12 of 16

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

¶69

Page No.13 of 16

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025 10.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. The offence alleged is private in nature arising out of business transaction. The Hon'ble Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 had permitted quashing of complaint of this nature.

¶72

11.In view of the above, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C quashes the proceedings in C.C.No.4138 of 2020 against the petitioners on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Exclusive Trial for CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

¶73

12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the terms of Joint Memo of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this Order. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶74

05.01.2026

¶75

Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2

¶76

Page No.14 of 16

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

¶79

To