Resort to criminal proceedings must not be mala fides and should be based on genuine criminal intent.

1. This Petition has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 755/08 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team No. IV, Egmore, Chennai-8, towards quashing thereof.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he, as a partner of a firm known as M/s. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co., which held property at No. 33(N.P.) and 34(N.P.), Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai was approached by the defacto complainant towards purchase thereof. The petitioner had informed the defacto complainant of the original title deeds being in the custody of Canara Bank and of consent to sell the property to the defacto complainant towards settling the dues with such Bank. A sale agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 12. 2007 and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid by the defacto complainant at that stage.

3. The Complaint in the case informs that, for sale of the said property a consideration of Rs. 22,50,00,000/-was arrived at and that it was represented by the accused/petitioner herein that the original title deeds pertaining to the above mentioned property were with his brother, who was abroad at that time and that since he knew the accused in the filed of business for many years, the defacto complainant trusted and believed him, entered into an agreement for sale on 12. 2007 and a further supplementary agreement on 11. 2008 and that a sum of Rs. 6,10,00,000/- has been paid to the accused/petitioner herein. When asked in February 2008 to produce the original title deeds, the accused/petitioner herein had informed that his brother was still abroad and demanded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- It was only in March 2008 that the complainant learnt that the property had been mortgaged with canara Bank by M/s. T.S. Hajee Moossa & Co., and the banker had initiated proceedings against them before the DRT at Chennai. This came to his knowledge only when the Bank officials of Canara Bank visited the property, Stating that the accused/petitioner herein was refusing to return back the money and alleging the deceptive intention on the part of the accused since the inception of the transaction and a threat meted out by the accused, in the Complaint complains of offence under Sections 406 r/w. 420, I.P.C. having been committed by the accused.

4. A typed set of papers has been filed along with the Petition and strong reliance was placed thereon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, which was objected to by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent. Mr. R. shanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgment in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) CTC 134 (SC): 2005 (1) SCC 568 and contended that at the initial stage this Court would only consider what was informed in the Complaint and the accused/petitioner cannot have this Court look into materials and documents put up by him. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others, 2008 (14) SCC 1, wherein it has been observed as follows:

“38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such materials as are indicated in section 227, Cr.P.C., can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceedings taken there from under Section 482, Cr.P.C.., the Court is free to consider materials that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Section 227 and 228, the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padi case by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred..

5. Following t