Madras High Court
B.Sivaganesan vs State Rep. By on 19 January, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.188 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.188 of 2017
and Crl.MP.No.140 of 2017
B.Sivaganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.767 of 2016)
2. L.Banumathi ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., calling
for the records of the FIR in Crime No.767 of 2016 pending investigation on the
file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan R1
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
Mr.Mukesh Kanna R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.767 of 2016
registered before the first respondent on 16.09.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.188 of 2017
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent, who is a
Doctor, is well known to one Vellaichamy and he had informed the second
respondent that he knows one Siva Ganesan, who was willing to sell two flats
each worth a sum of Rs.1,18,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Eighteen Lakhs
only). Based on the promise made by the said Sivaganesan, who is the petitioner
herein, the second respondent entered into an agreement of sale dated
16.08.2008 with the petitioner and is said to have paid an advance amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). The further case of the prosecution is
that even the original tile deeds were handed over to the second respondent
when the sale agreement was entered into. Subsequently, the petitioner did not
fulfil the promise and the cheques issued by him also got dishonoured. It is
alleged that the petitioner and the said Vellaichamy threatened the second
respondent to hand over the original title deeds. Based on this complaint given
by the second respondent, an FIR came to be registered for an offences under
Section 420, 417,463 and 506(ii) of IPC.
3. Heard Mr.A.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.C.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Mr.Mukesh Kanna, learned counsel for the second respondent.
Crl.O.P.No.188 of 2017
4. In the considered view of this Court, the entire transaction that has
taken place between the parties is purely civil in nature. Admittedly, there was
an agreement of sale executed in favour of the second respondent as early as in
the year 2008 itself and she did not take any steps to proceed further to file a
suit for specific performance based on the said agreement. Similarly, the second
respondent has also not taken any steps to file any suit for recovery of money
for the amount that was paid by her as advance at that time of entering into an
agreement of sale. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice
of this Court certain payments were made to the second respondent by way of
Demand Drafts to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-. This Court does not want to take
this fact into consideration for the purposes of the present case and this Court is
purely going by the averments that have been made in the complaint.
5. The entire dispute is civil in nature and an attempt has been made to
give it a criminal colour. The allegations made in the FIR also did not disclose
the commission of any offence by the petitioner. Therefore, continuation of the
investigation based on the FIR registered by the first respondent will only
amount to an abuse of process of law and the same requires the interference of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
this Court. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Crl.O.P.No.188 of 2017
Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bajan Lal and others
reported in 992 (1) SCC 335.
6. In the result, the FIR registered by the first respondent in Crime
No.767 of 2016 is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed
accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.01.2021
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rli
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.188 of 2017
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
rli
Crl.O.P.No.188 of 2017
and Crl.MP.No.140 of 2017
19.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
