TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seph Chambers, who is the only legal heir of late George Alexander Chambers and Ida L Chambers. The said George Alexander Chambers purchased 5000 equity shares and 2000 preferential shares in the name of M/s. Chrome Leather Company and appointed three trustees viz., Ida L Chambers, H.M. Small and Vellore Parthasarathy Jeganathan Mudaliar. Among those shares 4997 shares were held by the trustees and the trustees executed a sale deed in favour of M/s. Chrome Leather Company 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.Nos. 46 of 1963 & 2 of 1964. 3. Thereafter, the properties came into the possession of Ida L Chambers and she died on 13.08.1968, leaving behind the principal of the defacto complainant as her sole legal heir. Since the principal of the defacto complainant was travelling on the high seas, he was not able to concentrate upon the properties. While being so, the defacto complainant collected details and came to know that the equity shares and preferential shares were transferred in the name of A. Nagappa Chettiar and he was representing M/s. Chrome Leather Company as Mana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, and the same were allowed on 11.08.2016. Based on the said order, the first respondent has registered the present FIRs in Crime Nos.2 & 3 of 2016, by relying upon the same allegations levelled in the original complaint lodged by the second respondent. 6. Mr. S. Manishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after registration of FIRs, the investigation was conducted and filed final reports thereby concluded the cases as mistake of facts. On the closure report, the second respondent had filed protest petitions in C.M.P.Nos.4147 & 4148 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, and the same were also dismissed by an order dated 23.04.2009 and the closure reports were accepted as the FIRs closed as mistakes of facts. The second respondent failed to prefer any revision as against the said order and it attains finality. 6.1. After three years from the date of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, the Additional Director General of Police by his proceedings in R.C.No.C6/8313/2012 had taken up the FIRs registered in Crime Nos.304 & 305 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hrome Leather Company and M/s. Chambers & Co. The said George Alexander Chambers died on 16.11.1937 left behind a Will in favour of his third wife Ida L Chambers and Roy Edwin Medcalf Chamber, the son born through the second wife and also appointed Executors. The said Will was probated before this Court in O.P.No.57 of 1938. 6.4. In the mean while, the said Ida L Chambers and 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 and the same was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. Thereafter, they sold out six movable and immovable properties of M/s. Crome Leather Company Private Limited. The said sale was challenged before this Court in C.S.No.46 of 1963 by Roy Edwin Medclaf Chambers. The counter party viz., Ida L Chambers also filed another suit in C.S.No.2 of 1964 seeking permission to effect a sale of 7000 shares of M/s. Crome Leather Company Private Limited. In both the above suits, a Common Compromise Memo filed in application No.220 of 1965 in C.S.No.2 of 1964 and both the suits were disposed of under a Common Compromise Decre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice inviting tenders from the prospective buyers for purchase of the shares of M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited including its building and machineries. M/s. V.K.K. Charities made their bid and finally declared as successful bidder. The successful bidder approached the BIFR to rehabilitate the company without resorting to the sale of lands. Accordingly, BIFR appointed the Central Bank of India as operating agency to examine the proposed revival scheme submitted by the new promoters, by an order dated 18.10.1994. Thereafter, the Central Bank of India came to a conclusion that V.K.K. Charities had proved their capacity for bringing in funds for a start-up operation. 6.8. The said V.K.K. Charities nominated the petitioner herein to the Board of M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited vide order dated 29.05.1995 and nominated him for receiving transfer of shares in his own name and also nominate him as a Director of the company and the same also informed to BIFR. The Central bank of India accepted the nomination and executed necessary share transfer deed transferring 4995 equity shares in favour of the petitioner. The Central Bank of India had also released its dues....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at England. Therefore, the present impugned FIR is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed. 6.12. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the second respondent relied upon the Will as if executed by his principal George Alexander Chamber and filed O.P.No.382 of 2010 for probation. Though it was allowed initially, thereafter revoked and condemned the conduct of the second respondent and had observed that prima facie case of fraud has been shown to the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed an appeal in O.S.A.No.256 of 2012 and this Court directed to convert the aforesaid OP as Testamentary Suit and accordingly it had been numbered as T.O.S.No.7 of 2012 and the same was also dismissed by this Court by an order dated 17.07.2018. 6.13. In fact, the acceptance of tender submitted by M/s.V.K.K. Charities has been challenged by one Motherland Leathers before the District Munsif, Tambaram, in O.S.No.3392 of 1993 and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 23.06.1994. Therefore, the second respondent has no locus standi to lodge any complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India time and again insisted that a civi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 1988 itself, when the properties were under mortgage with the bank, the petitioner herein had purchased 5.96 grounds of land in S.No.517/6, situated at Pallavaram Village from the Bank vide document No.1764/1988 in favour of the petitioner's wife, in violation of the civil Court decree. Thus, the criminal conspiracy between the bank and the petitioner to illegally acquire the company with the bank's support commenced from the year 1988 itself. The records disclose that the bank has sold nearly 20 acres of lands which were illegally pledged by A. Nagappa Chettiar and the same has taken place directly without following the procedures as contemplated under the Cr.P.C., and without accounting for the same before the Court. 7.3. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had a close nexus with the bank and manipulated the sale of the shares from the name of the successful bidder M/s. V.K.K. Charities into his own name and started selling the properties indiscriminately and thus he had continued with the illegal activities commenced by Nagappa Chettiar. Further the petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 31.01.1995 with M/s. V.K.K. Charities to purchase the shares....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 248 acres, in which 57.95 acres of land were used for constructing Madras Institute of Technology at Chrompet. The remaining 190 acres was in the name of Ida L Chambers, which was taken possession by the petitioner herein under the pretext of belonging to M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited. 7.7. In Crl.O.P.No.12986 of 2020, the first respondent filed counter and it revealed that the entire transaction of shares of M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited, first by way of pledging in Central Bank of India by A. Nagappa Chettiar and later taken in auction by the petitioner herein, has been done arbitrarily without following any of the procedure as mentioned in the Companies Act, 1956, with the criminal intention of grabbing the large landed properties of Ida L Chambers. The subsequent act of the petitioner in selling the landed properties of Ida L Chambers is even more grave offence which has been committed through forging of land records and using benamies for selling them and making huge pecuniary gains. 7.8. The petitioner herein was a sitting Member of Parliament and has been in public life for many years. His above act strikes at the very root of probity in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so illegally pledged the properties standing in the name of Ida L Chambers as the said properties belong to the Company. Further the tender notice dated 27.06.1993 issued by the Central Bank of India was only for the sale of the shares of M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited and never for sale of the immovable properties, buildings and machineries, which were never included for sale through the said notice. If the company had already owned the immovable properties, then with the transfer of shares through the sale, the immovable properties of the company also got transferred. But here in this case, when the company had been divested of all its immovable properties by virtue of the judgment of this Court dated 19.02.1965, the question of transfer of the properties along with the sale of its shares does not arise. 8.3. He further submitted that more than 9000 documents have been collected in the course of investigation and the evidence discloses that the properties worth about several crores of rupees have been illegally grabbed by the petitioner and his associates, by forgery and fabrication of title deed and share certificates. Further, the investigation is almost reachin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al rowdies. With the help of the Revenue Officers and local Thasildar, all the properties were transferred in the name of the petitioner and his wife in various survey numbers. The accused formed layouts and sold the properties making crores of money which are not rightfully their properties and they continuously threatened the defacto complainant to do away with his life. 12. The brief fact in Crime No.3 of 2022 is that one A. Nagappa Chettiyar forged certificates of M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Company and pledged it with the bank and subsequently sold to the petitioner illegally. The original share certificates were in the name of the trustees viz., H.M. Small, V.P. Jaganathan and Ida L Chambers. However, the shares in possession of the petitioner herein were false and fabricated by the previous owner A. Nagappa Chettiyar. Further the said A. Nagappa Chettiyar and the Central Bank of India were co-conspirators and under valued the shares. Further A. Nagappa Chettiyar and the petitioner entered into a conspiracy to forge and fabricate the share certificate of M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited. 13. It is not disputed by both parties the one English businessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agappa Chettiar pledged the shares of M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited with the Central Bank of India and availed loan to start up his business. Due to various reasons, he could not repay the said loans. Thereafter, the bank filed suit in O.S.No.314 of 1980 and the same was ended in compromise wherein the bank was authorized to sell the shares. Thereafter, M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (herein after referred to as "BIFR") by the bank and its shares were brought for auction. 17. M/s. V.K.K. Charities being the highest bidder and the same was also confirmed. M/s. V.K.K. Charities nominated the petitioner as Director who was acted upon and the Bank also issued no due certificate on 05.06.1995. Therefore, there is no direct accesses between the petitioner and the said A. Nagappa Chettiar and the petitioner had no connection with him. The said A. Nagappa Chettiar died on 13.03.1982 and after the period of twenty five years, the second respondent claimed to be a power agent of George Joseph Chambers lodged complaints and the same had been registered in Crime Nos.304 & 305 of 2007 on the file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....C.No.1083 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. Further the application filed by George Joseph Chambers to revoke the Letter of Administration granted in O.P.No.178 of 1969 and the proceedings initiated to annul the probate of Ida L Chambers was also dismissed. When the said George Joseph Chambers himself has no right over the property, the second respondent cannot assign any right either over the company viz., M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited or its property. Therefore, the second respondent is a total stranger and he has no right to initiate any proceedings which were inter-se party viz., Ida L Chamber on the one side and Roy Edwin Medclaf Chambers, who got settled by way of memorandum of compromise and compromise decree dated 19.02.1965 in application in A.No.220 of 1965 in C.S.Nos.46 of 1963 & 2 of 1964. 22. Further George Joseph Chambers himself died on 06.09.2008 as such, the power executed by him in favour of the second respondent also expired. Therefore, the second respondent has no locus standi to claim any property for his principal. Further his principal viz., George Jos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mined and recorded their statements. The records were collected and perused. The complainant though alleged that G.J. Chambers is the sole legal heir of the G.A. Chamber and Ida L Chamber and also the owner of the Chrome Leather Company, he is not able to produce any single document to substantiate his allegations. The death certificate of the said K.H. Chambers and Ida L Chambers produced by the complainant seems to be bogus in nature and not issued by the Corporation authorities. Therefore, the complainant is not able to establish that G.J. Chamber is the actual legal heir of the above said persons. Secondly, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the said Chrome Leather Company was illegally usurped by Nagappa Chettiar and others. Whereas the said legal heirs of Nagappa Chettiar and Jagathratchagan had produced number of documents to prove that Ida L Chambers had sold the Company to Nagappa Chettiar by transferring the shares in his name during the year 1965. The affidavit filed by Ida L Chamber before the Hon'ble High Court also confirms that she had sold the company along with the properties to Nagappa Chettiar. Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the earlier closure report in Crime Nos. 304 & 305 of 2007. There was absolutely no new material warranting re-investigation in the closure report submitted in Crime Nos.304 & 305 of 2007. Therefore, there is no iota of material evidence to attract the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC as against the petitioner. 27. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 420 of the Penal Code as follows :- 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC are as follows :- (i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415 and (ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urports to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 468 provides that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Section 471, relevant to this purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. 31. The term "forgery" used in these sections is defined in Section 463 of IPC. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 of IPC defines "making a false document". The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 is forgery. The condition pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same was ended in a compromise decree dated 19.02.1965. Subsequently the shares of M/s. Chrome Leather Company Private Limited transferred to A. Nagappa Chettiar on 21.04.1965. He along with his family members were holding the shares and pledged the same to the Central Bank of India. Thereafter, the petitioner being the nominee of M/s. V.K.K. Charities, in the year 1995, with the approval of BIFR, purchased the shares in the auction proceedings dated 27.08.1993. 35. On perusal of all the proceedings pertaining to the subject properties categorically shows that the matter has been settled by the orders of this Court 50 years ago and the same sought to be re-opened for investigation which is clearly not permissible. The petitioner came into the picture only in the year 1995, when the shares transferred to M/s. V.K.K. Charities, who was the successful bidder in the auction. All the proceedings from the initiation of auction are sanctioned by the BIFR by sanctioning the scheme of rehabilitation. 36. That apart, the shares which were pledged to the Central Bank of India by A. Nagappa Chettiar as early in the year 1968 and the charge was also recorded with the Registrar of Comp....