Madras High Court
S.Vanniya Raj @ S.V.Raja vs State By Inspector Of Polic on 28 October, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.10963 & 10964 of 2018
S.Vanniya Raj @ S.V.Raja ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State by Inspector of Polic,
H8, Tiruvottiyur Police Station,
Chennai.
2. D.Lakshmanan ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in
Crime No.898 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, H-8,
Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
For M/S.T.Sudhan Raj
For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap R1
Public Prosecutor
Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan R2
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the FIR in
Crime No.898 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, H-8,
Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai, which was filed against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the power
agent of one Pattammal and others in respect of certain plots in
Nos.149,150,151,152,154,172 comprised in S.No.308,309,310/1,31082
situated in Sathangadu Village. The petitioner, as a power agent, entered
into an agreement of sale dated 07.02.2009 with the defacto complainant for
the sale of the above said plots fixing the total sale consideration of Rs.25
Lakhs and received an advance amount of Rs.7 Lakhs periodically from
30.07.2010 to 27.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has refused to register
the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto
complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent police on
25.02.2018 against the petitioner. Based on this complaint given by the
second respondent/defacto complainant, an FIR came to be registered for an
offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. Challenging the said FIR, the
petitioner has filed the present petition with the afore said prayer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that though the alleged agreement was entered into between the petitioner
and the defacto complainant on 07.02.2009 and last payment was made on
27.12.2010 to the tune of Rs.11 Lakhs including the advance amount.
However, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first
respondent police only on 31.07.2018 and on perusal of the complaint, he
has not disclosed any crime against the petitioner. The learned Senior
counsel further submitted that on the earlier occasion, the petitioner filed a
complaint before the respondent police, for which, the petitioner fled an
anticipatory bail petition before this Court in Crl.OP.No.4965 of 2018. This
Court directed the respondent police to conduct enquiry and after such
enquiry take appropriate action either to file FIR or close the complaint and
report it to the Court. The petitioner complied with the orders of this Court
and appeared before the respondent police on 10.03.2018 and submitted all
the necessary copies of documents and cooperated for the enquiry. The
defacto complainant has also participated in the proceedings. During the
hearing dated 16.03.2018, this Court, was pleaded to close the
Crl.OP.No.4965 of 2018 based on the submission of the learned
Government Advocate. Suppressing all these facts, the defacto complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
filed another Crl.OP.No.8224/2018 on 14.03.2018 and obtained an ex-parte
order from this Court to register the FIR against the petitioner. Based on the
said order, the present FIR has been filed against the petitioner. The learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that on instructions, the petitioner is ready
to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) to the defacto
complainant. The defacto complainant paid the entire amount only to the
land owners and not to the petitioner, he is only a power agent. Hence, the
learned Senior counsel prays that the petitioner is innocent and he has not
committed any office and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner
and seeks to quash the FIR which was filed against the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent, on instructions,
submitted that the second respondent/defacto complainant is agreed to
receive the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) from the
petitioner.
5. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for
the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
6. 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 2009 itself and he 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 him as advance at
that time of entering into an agreement of sale. The learned senior counsel
for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court certain payments were
made by the second respondent only to the Principals. If the second
respondent has to seek his remedy only from the principals and not the
petitioner herein. 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.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
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 to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs.
Bajan Lal and others reported in 992 (1) SCC 335.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the
submission made by either side, this Court allows the original petition by
quashing the FIR in crime No.898/2018 against the petitioners on the
undertaking of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) to the second respondent by way of demand draft within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Original
Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
28.12.2021
rli
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
To
1.The Inspector of Polic,
H8, Tiruvottiyur 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.20405 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Rli
Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.10963 & 10964 of 2018
28.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
