Madras High Court
Petitioner vs Unknown on 19 January, 2021
Crl.O.P.No......................
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.26 of 2017
................. ... Petitioner
Vs.
....................... ... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
.................
For Petitioner : Mr.............
For Respondents : Mr.................
Mr.Mukesh Kanna R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.67 of 2016
registered before the first respondent on 16.09.2016.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
herein, the second respondent entered into an agreement of sale dated
Crl.O.P.No......................
16.08.2008 with the petitioner and is said to have paid an advance amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (.............) 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.
Heard Mr.......................learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and
Mr.Mukesh Kanna, learned counsel for the second respondent.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
for the amount that was paid by her for advance at that time of entering into an
Crl.O.P.No......................
agreement of sale. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice
of this Court certain payments that were made to the second respondent by way
of Demand Draft 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.
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
this Court. Useful reference can be made the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in ..........................1992 (1) SCC 335.
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.
19.01.2021
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Index :Yes/No
Crl.O.P.No......................
Internet:Yes/No
rli
To
.........................
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No......................
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
rli
Crl.O.P.No............. of 2020
19.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
