Madras High Court
P.Wilson Thomas vs The State Rep. By on 4 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.No.4000 of 2024
1. P.Wilson Thomas
2. Renni
3. Parthiban
4. Sijo ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Coimbatore City.
(Crime No.8 of 2024)
2. Nadarajan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings as
against the petitioners in Crime No.8 of 2024, pending on the file of the
first respondent.
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.V.Karthik, Senior Counsel
For Mr.A.Parthasarathy
For R2 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.8
of 2024 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences
under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first
respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.8 of 2024 on the allegations
that the second respondent is an Executive Director of M/s.Champion
Textile Limited, Coimbatore. He had entered into a Joint Development
Agreement with the petitioners on 24.01.2022 and also executed General
Power of Attorney registered vide document No.802 of 2022 in favour of
M/s.JMJ Housing Limited, Coimbatore, represented by its Managing
Director for construction of 31 houses. Thereafter, the first petitioner
violated the terms of the agreement without giving any notice to the
second respondent, fabricated the forged life certificate of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
respondent and had executed three sale deeds in favour of the second and
other petitioners of the first petitioner's company vide document
Nos.3338 of 2022, 5083 of 2022 & 5241 of 2022. The second respondent
had never appeared before the Doctor who issued the life certificate.
After knowing the forgery of the life certificate, the second respondent
by his communication dated 28.05.2023, cancelled the Joint
Development Agreement and also cancelled the general power of
attorney. Even after cancellation of joint development agreement and
general power of attorney, the accused persons constructed house in plot
Nos. 51, 34 and 52 and also kept the display of boards at various places
for sale of houses for sum of Rs.45 lakhs. Further alleged that without
producing the original documents such as parent document in document
No.1767 of 1995, general power of attorney, DTCP layout approval, the
first petitioner executed three sale deeds in favour of other accused
persons in respect of twelve plots. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4. The first petitioner is the
Managing Director of M/s.JMJ Housing Limited, Coimbatore. On receipt
of Rs.75 lakhs from the petitioners, the company viz., M/s.Champion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
Textile Limited, represented by the second respondent had executed joint
development agreement and also had executed power of attorney to
develop the property owned by the second respondent. Thereafter,
M/s.JMJ Housing Limited had spent more than Rs.1.65 Crores for
construction of compound wall, roads, drainage, electric line and other
amineties to the property. The Joint development agreement and power
of attorney were entered by the company in favour of another company.
Therefore, on the strength of power of attorney, if any deed of
conveyance, the life certificate of the member is not required as per the
circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.
3.1. That apart, the second respondent had filed a suit in
O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sulur, for
permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from any manner not to
try to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject
property. In the plaint there is no whisper about the fabrication of life
certificate or subsequent deed of conveyance executed in favour of the
accused 2 to 4 by the first accused. It shows that the second respondent
had introduced a new story of his choice to make out a case for forgery
and fabrication of records. After execution of joint development
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
agreement, there was escalation of prices in the real estate as such, the
second respondent started given trouble and dragged the project in many
ways. In order to stall the entire project, the second respondent filed suit
for permanent injunction in O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the District
Munisif Court, Sulur. In fact, the second respondent also filed an
interlocutory application seeking interim injunction in I.A.No.3 of 2023
and the same was dismissed on merits by the judgment and decree dated
31.01.2024. Subsequently, the main suit itself is dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to file comprehensive suit, by an order dated 31.01.2024.
After withdrawing the suit, the second respondent lodged the present
complaint with new set of allegations.
3.2. He further submitted that already the second respondent
approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch,
by way of complaint dated 29.09.2023. After due enquiry, the said
complaint was closed as civil in nature on 17.10.2023. Further, now the
second respondent managed to register the FIR that too, with false
allegations and giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. It is nothing
but arm twisting method to settle the issue. Therefore, it is malafied one
and serious abuse of process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
3.3. He further submitted that even on perusal of the life
certificate, the second respondent had appeared before the Doctor who
issued the life certificate and his appearance was duly recorded and
issued life certificate for execution of deed of conveyance on the strength
of the power of attorney. Further even as per the complaint lodged by the
second respondent, there is no allegations that the second respondent
never appeared before the Doctor, who issued the life certificate. If the
company has registered the power of attorney, as per the circular issued
by the Inspector General of Registration, the life certificate is not
required to register the sale deed and there is absolutely no necessity for
the first accused for obtaining the life certificate. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) 2023 Live Law (Sc) 624 – Mohammed Wajid & Anr Vs. State
of UP & ors
(ii) 2023 (15) SCC 135 – Usha Chakraborty & anr Vs. State of
West Bengal & Anr
(iii) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82 – Sachin Garg Vs. State of UP &
anr
(iv) 2023 (5) SCC 360 – Sarabjit Karu Vs. State of Pnjab & anr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second
respondent submitted that in order to cheat the defacto complainant, the
first accused with the connivance of the Doctor, forged the signature of
the second respondent and obtained life certificate for execution of sale
deed on the strength of the power of attorney. As per the joint
development agreement, the first petitioner viz., the developer
unconditionally agreed that no single site of the schedule property will be
sold as site without the composite agreement as above, with a copy
furnished to the land owner before the actual registration of the site
concerned. However, violating the said conditions the first accused
executed the sale deeds in favour the accused 2 to 4, who are none other
than his own family members. The first petitioner violated all the terms
and conditions of the joint development agreement, thereby cheated the
second respondent.
4.1. Further the first accused failed to obtain sanction from the
authority to construct house within the stipulated period of six months.
For the delay, there is no explanation from the first petitioner. Thereafter,
without consent and without the knowledge of the second respondent,
the first petitioner had fabricated the life certificate and had executed sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
deed in favour of his own family members. After execution of sale deed
the fourth respondent had mortgaged the said property and had availed
loan. Therefore, the joint development agreement and also the general
power of attorney were cancelled.
4.2. That apart, the second respondent also filed petition before
the District Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act,
challenging the sale deeds executed by the first accused in favour of
other accused persons on the strength of the power of attorney executed
in favour of the first petitioner. Though the second respondent filed suit
for permanent injunction, subsequently, it was withdrawn with liberty to
file comprehensive suit. Accordingly, fresh suit has been filed for
declaration declaring the sale deeds dated 09.12.2022 as null and void
and also for injunction in O.S.No.364 of 2022 and it is pending on the
file of the learned Principal District Court, Coimbatore.
4.3. He further submitted that the second respondent also filed
an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the issue between the second
respondent and the petitioner. He further submitted that there are specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
allegations to attract the offence as against the petitioner. Further it is
only FIR and it cannot be quashed on its threshold. The first respondent
ought to have investigate further to find out the truth. Further the FIR has
been registered only on 08.02.2024 and within a period of 20 days,
without even completion of one month, the petitioners have approached
this Court to quash the very FIR itself. It cannot be quashed in haste and
hurried manner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment
report (2023) 4 SCC 338 in the case of State Vs. M.Maridoss and anr.,
in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that without giving
any reasonable time to the investigating agency to investigate the
allegation in the FIR, in haste and hurried manner, it should not be
quashed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. The second respondent is the Director of Company called
M/s.Champion Textiles Limited. The first petitioner is the Managing
Director of M/s. JMJ Housing Limited. The second respondent owned
property comprised in S.F.No.90/1 to an extent of 2.04 acres situated at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
Pattanam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. In order to develop
the said property, the second respondent had obtained DTCP approval
for residential layout and formed layout in the name of "Rajappa Nagar"
along with other land ad measuring 2.05 acres which belongs to
V.G.Rani and Sumathi, who are the daughters of the second respondent's
elder brother.
7. Thereafter, M/s.Champion Textile Limited had entered into
joint development agreement with M/s.JMJ Housing Limited on
09.01.2022, in order to develop the property by constructing villas. On
perusal of the terms and conditions, the share of land area between them
in the ratio of 50% each. The first petitioner's company agreed to
construct entire share of the property including 50% share of the second
respondent company as per the approved plan with the common area.
Further second respondent agreed to execute the registered power of
attorney in favour of the petitioner for the remaining 50% share as in the
schedule property to be sold in favour of the third parties, after entering
into a composite agreement with the prospective buyers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
8. Further, the second respondent's company had executed
power of attorney dated 24.11.2022 in favour of the first petitioner's
company on receipt of Rs.75,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioners had
also spent more than Rs.1,65,00,000/- for construction of compound
wall, roads, drainage, electric line and other amenities towards
development of the property. While being so, there was a dispute
between them with regard to land cost and also delay in developing the
property. Therefore, the second respondent filed suit in O.S.No.73 of
2023 for injunction restraining the first petitioner's company from
interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner subject property
by the second respondent's company.
9. On perusal of the complaint lodged by the second
respondent's company revealed that the first petitioner's company had
violated the terms and conditions of the joint development agreement and
the first petitioner had executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners 2
to 4, who are none other than his own family members, that too without
passing any sale consideration. The first petitioner also failed to furnish
accounts details to the second respondent about the sale consideration.
Therefore, immediately, the second respondent company cancelled the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
power of attorney by the cancellation of power deed dated 26.05.2023
registered vide document No.7069 of 2023. Subsequently, it was duly
communicated to the first accused company and also cancelled the joint
development agreement dated 19.01.2022. However there is no whisper
about the fabrication of life certificate and also the forged signature of
the second respondent while obtaining life certificate.
10. Further already the second respondent filed suit in
O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sulur, for
permanent injunction as against the petitioner. Along with the suit, the
second respondent also filed an application for interim injunction in
I.A.No.3 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by an order dated
03.01.2024 by the learned District Munsif, Sulur. The only contention of
the second respondent in the plaint is that the first petitioner has failed to
construct any building in the second respondent's share of 50% land and
the first petitioner had constructed house in his share and the same has
been sold out in favour of his own family members by three registered
sale deeds. There is no whisper about the allegation of fabrication of any
life certificate and the forged signature of the second respondent. That
apart, even as per the complaint the Doctor, who issued life certificate to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
the second respondent, is very much available in the address mentioned
in the certificate.
11. On perusal of the circular issued by the Inspector General of
Registration dated 02.02.2021, it is clear that when the company registers
a power of attorney in favour of another company, if any deed of
conveyance executed on the strength of the power of attorney, the life
certificate of the member is not required, for the reason that if the
company executed power of attorney through any one of it's directors,
who represented the company, if he died, even then the power of attorney
can hold good, since the company can be represented by other directors.
Therefore, if the power of attorney executed by the company represented
by one of it's directors, the life certificate of the person is not required
while executing the deed of conveyance on the strength of the power of
attorney. In the case on hand, the company of the second respondent had
executed power of attorney in favour of the first accused company.
Therefore, as per the circular issued by the Inspector General of
Registration, the life certificate is not required, if the company executed
power of attorney, while dealing with the property by executing any deed
of conveyance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
12. The main allegation is that the first accused company had
obtained life certificate without the presence of the second respondent
and executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4 herein. On
perusal of life certificate produced by the first petitioner, while
presentation of sale deed for registration, it is seen that the signature of
the second respondent found in the life certificate and the power of
attorney, both are one and the same. It is also evident that the second
respondent did not even whisper about the allegation in the plaint in
O.S.No.73 of 2023. After dismissal of the interim injunction application
in I.A.No.3 of 2023 dated 03.01.2024, the second respondent had
withdrawn the suit with liberty to file comprehensive suit. Accordingly,
the main suit itself dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the second
respondent lodged the present complaint in Crime No.8 of 2024, which is
impugned in this petition alleging that the first accused had fabricated
life certificate by forging the signature of the second respondent.
13. In fact, the first accused company is entitled for 50% of the
land and the first accused can deal with the same as per the joint
development agreement. Even assuming that there is dispute in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
allotment of share and dealing with the property, no offence is made out
as against the petitioners as alleged in the FIR. In fact, after withdrawal
of the suit for injunction, the second respondent instituted comprehensive
suit in O.S.No.364 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Coimbatore, and it is pending for adjudication. That apart, as per the
specific clause in the joint development agreement, the second
respondent also initiated proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act before this Court for appointment of Arbitrator to
adjudicate the issue between the petitioner and the second respondent
and it is pending in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.394 of 2024 before this
Court.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the case of
Mohammed Wajid & anr Vs. State of U.P. & ors, reported in 2023
Livelaw (SC) 624 as follows :-
“30. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an Accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers Under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed
against the Accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the
averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or
not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a
duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection
try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising
its jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to
take into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a
period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances
the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of
private or personal grudge as alleged.”
Thus it is clear that the complainant would ensure that the averments
made in the complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Further this Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is empowered to
take into account the over all circumstances leading to the registration of
the FIR and also to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the records of the case over and above the averments and
if need be, with due care and circumstance try to read in between the
lines.
15. On perusal of the entire allegations in the FIR impugned in
this petition, it is understood that the same did not disclose any offence.
All the allegations are pertaining to civil dispute between the parties. In
fact, the second respondent also filed suit for declaration, declaring that
all the sale deed executed in favour of other accused persons as null and
void. After having been failed before the civil Court and after dismissal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
of the interim injunction application, the second respondent has now
resorted to lodge the present complaint upon frustration and as a tool for
oppression and harassment of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court has to
see that the criminal proceedings are not permitted to be used as a
weapon of harassment by instituting the present FIR.
16. Further on perusal of the complaint, the averments made
thereunder are nothing but breach of contract. Therefore, it would not
constitute any offence of cheating. In this regard, it is relevant to rely
upon the judgment reported in 2023 (5) SCC 360 in the case of Sarabjit
Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and anr, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India held as follows :-
“13. A breach of contract does not give rise to
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up
promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings.
From the facts available on record, it is evident that the
Respondent No. 2 had improved his case ever since the first
complaint was filed in which there were no allegations
against the Appellant rather it was only against the property
dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
of the Appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the
only request was for return of the amount paid by the
Respondent No. 2. When the offence was made out on the
basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed
with improved version making allegations against the
Appellant as well which was not there in the earlier
complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil
dispute into criminal and put pressure on the Appellant for
return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal Courts are
not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties
to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal
offences are made out, criminal courts have to take
cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which
F.I.R. was registered was filed nearly three years after the
last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the
proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the
Court.”
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Though
the petitioner approached this Court within a period of one month from
the date of registration of FIR, when the complaint does not disclose any
ingredients to attract any of the offence, the petitioners need not to go
ordeal of investigation in Crime No.8 of 2024. Hence the judgment relied
upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent
is not applicable to the case on hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
17. Further the second respondent completely suppressed the
fact that already the second respondent filed suit and the same got
dismissed as withdrawn to file comprehensive suit, while lodging the
complaint. Therefore, the entire dispute involved, is essentially civil in
nature and the second respondent attempted to give a cloak of criminal
offence, in such circumstance, when the second respondent had already
resorted to civil remedy and it is pending. The present FIR is nothing but
clear abuse of process of Court and it is liable to be quashed.
18. In view of the above discussions, the impugned FIR cannot
be sustained and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime
No.8 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed and
the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
To
1 The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Coimbatore City.
2. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
Order in
04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
