Madras High Court
M.Kuppan vs The State Represented By on 10 October, 2022
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
and Crl.M.P. No.2206 of 2021
1. M.Kuppan
2. K.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Aminjikarai Police Station.
Cr. No.144 of 2020
2. D.Paranthaman ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to call for all the records and quash all the
proceedings in Cr. No.144 of 2020 now pending investigation on the file of
the first respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr. P.Kumaresan
For Respondent-1 : Mr.A.Damodaran
2 : Mr.S.Vivekananthan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for all the records and
quash all the proceedings in Cr. No.144 of 2020 now pending investigation
on the file of the first respondent.
2. The subject matter of the disputed property was originally owned by
one Muthu. The first petitioner / second accused purchased the same from
Muthu by virtue of a sale deed dated 06.06.1990 and also executed the Power
of Attorney in favour of one Munusamy by a registered Power of Attorney
dated 14.11.2003. On 24.06.2004 the said Power of Attorney was also
cancelled. On 13.08.2004 the first petitioner settled the property in favour of
his wife, the second petitioner. The second petitioner / third accused had sold
away the property in favour of first accused Kumaresan. However, the power
agent Munusamy had executed the sale deed in favour of the de facto
complainant and his brothers Dasarathan and Duraisamy. The said
Kumarasean, who had purchased the property from the second petitioner, had
filed a civil suit in O.S. No.66 / 2012 on the file of District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, to cancel the sale deed executed in
favour of Munusamy, de facto complainant and his brothers. Based on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
compromise entered into between the parties, the sale deeds executed in
favour of the de facto complainant and his brothers was cancelled by virtue of
a cancellation deed dated 12.07.2017. Subsequently, the suit filed by the third
accused in O.S. No.66 of 2012 was also dismissed as withdrawn. Now the de
facto complainant submits that the suit was withdrawn on the basis of
compromise entered to cancel the sale deeds executed by the power agent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even
according to the allegations of the de facto complainant, a cheque was issued
by the first accused and the petitioners / accused 2 and 3 are no way
connected to the transactions as alleged in the complaint. He further
submitted that since no materials are available against the petitioners, the FIR
registered against the petitioners should be quashed.
4. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the
sale deeds which have been executed by the power agent subsequent to the
cancellation of the power in favour of the de facto complainant and his
brothers were cancelled on 12.07.2017. Though it may be possible that the
action of cancelling the sale deeds was due to the compromise entered into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
between the parties, no terms of compromise have been produced to show
that any of the accused had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour
of the de facto complainant for cancelling the sale deeds executed in his
favour by the power agent. Even though the learned counsel for the second
respondent submitted that there is no written agreement to substantiate the
above said terms of compromise. In the absence of any such materials, there
cannot be any prima facie case against the petitioners for stopping the
payment made by the first accused for the alleged cheque issued by him.
5. It is reliably learnt that the second respondent did not file any
complaint against first accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. However, it is up to the investigation agency to investigate about the the
alleged cheque issued by the first accused in favour of the de facto
complainant and its veracity and all other facts connected therein. So far as
the second and the third accused are concerned, they are only the lawful
owners of the property who have also conveyed their interest in favour of the
first accused.
6. Without any prima facie material to make out a case of cheating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
against the petitioners, they cannot be arrayed as accused in the case given
by the de facto complainant on the allegations that the cheque issued by the
first accused was dishonoured for stopping the payment. In this context it is
relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992
Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335. In this regard, it is relevant to extract
the special portions of the above judgment:
“........
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence bu constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the Institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge”.
7. Since no useful purpose will be served if the investigation is
continued against 2 and 3rd accused, I feel that it is an appropriate case where
the powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked to
quash the FIR as against the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Orginal Petition is allowed and the FIR in
Cr. No.144 of 2020 is quashed as against the petitioners alone. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Aminjikarai Police Station.
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
bkn
Crl.O.P No.3692 of 2021
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
