1. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. This petition is filed seeking for a direction to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Cr.No. 94 of 2009 taken on file by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore City on 7.11.2009 on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant for the alleged offences under Secs.120-B and 420 IPC, and to quash the same.

2. For better appreciation, the factual backdrop involved is briefly outlined herein:

The 2nd petitioner is the son of the petitioners 1 and 3, who are said to be the owners of the property in S.Nos.26/2B and 26/2C. The allegation is that by representing to the defacto-complainant that they would sell to him 33 cents of property for a sum of Rs.95,09,459/-, the petitioners made him to believe that there was no encumbrance in the property and believing such representation, the defacto-complainant purchased the same for a valid consideration under registered sale deeds in the year 2007. After purchase, when the defacto-complainant was taking steps to sell the property, he came to know that the entire extent was already earmarked for public road as per the orders of the local planning authority and thereby, he was deceitfully cheated by the petitioners, which resulted in setting in motion the present criminal proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.S. Vijayakumar, by pointing out that the petitioners had sold the property after furnishing all the relevant details and by well apprising the Scheme in G.O.Ms.No.661, Housing and Urban development Department dated 12.10.1994, whereby the Scheme to form a public road itself was abandoned in terms of Sec.38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, and would submit that thus, absolutely there was never an encumbrance in respect of the property and further, the Registering Authority had also registered the sale thereby, confirming that the scheme has been rendered redundant. The learned counsel further pointed out that the property was sold as early as during April 2007 and consequently, mutation of records was also effected and such being the position, the complaint lodged 2 ½ years after the transaction only with a view to harass the petitioners can never be sustained in the eye of law as there is no element of cheating or deception as contemplated under Sec.420 IPC.

4. The learned counsel referred to Sec.38 of the Town and Country Planning Act and also the Notification dated 12.10.1994 and also placed reliance on the following decisions:

(2005) 11 SCC 222 (Raju S. Jethmalani and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Others)

(2008) 3 L.W 982 (Karpaga Nagar Nala Urimai Sangam vs Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and Others

(2008) 2 MLJ 184 (K.S. Kamakshi Chetty and Others vs Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality, Aruppukottai and Another

(2009) 8 SCC 751 (Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs State of Bihar and another)

(2009) 7 SCC 712 (Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others vs State of Punjab and Others)

2009 (5) SCALE (Hira Lal and Others vs State of UP and Ors)

(2009) 9 SCC 682 (M.N. Ojha and Others vs Alok Kumar Srivastav and another)

2009(7) UJ SC 3292 (Dalip Kaur and Ors vs Jagnar Singh and Another

5. Per contra, Mr.G.L. Ramshankar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant would submit that having known well that the subject matter of the property was earmarked for the public road by the authorities, the petitioners had fraudulently sold the property by suppressing such vital aspect with the sole intention to cheat the defacto-complainant. By stating that the encumbrance certificate, dated 19.4.2007, did not reflect any encumbrance, the learned counsel further submitted that the conduct of the parties would show that from the inception, they obsessed with the intention of cheating the defacto-complainant, the petitioners suppressed the material facts to the adverse interest of the defacto-complainant and if the crimina