1. The above petitions have been preferred seeking to call for the records in C.C.Nos.155, 156 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, and Cr.No.229 of 2010 on the file of T-4 Maduravoyal Police Station and to quash the same.

2. All these cases have been heard together and they are given disposal by the common order. The 1st petitioner is the mother and the other petitioners are her sons and daughters. The property in Old S.No.88/1D, New S.No.117/2 measuring total extent of 1.61 acres, belongs to the 1st petitioner/mother. On 26.3.2003, the complainants in Cr.No.2693/2007, who are husband and wife entered into a sale agreement for the purchase of the aforesaid property for a sum of Rs.27,37,644/- and initially paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance and later a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioners' sons were witnesses to the agreement. However, there were some encroachment in the property and it was agreed that the sale shall be concluded on removal of those encroachments. Removal of encroachments has lead to civil and criminal proceedings.

3. While so, an agreement was entered into between the complainants and the 1st petitioner and thereby, the complainants agreed to restrict their sale agreement for half of the property and the remaining half was to be sold to the 2nd complainant.

4. On 16.8.2005, the 1st petitioner entered into a sale agreement with the 2nd complainants for the half of the property and received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as advance. The sale consideration was Rs.13,68,222/-. However, the sale deeds were not executed.

5. According to the complainants, after removal of the encroachments by the active participation of the agreement holders, in order to deceive them, the 1st petitioner had stealthy and fraudulently executed a gift settlement deed in favour of her children on 5.3.2007. The agreement holders of the earlier sale agreement had given a complaint in Cr.No.2693 of 2007 for the offences under secs.120-B and 420 IPC. Similarly, the agreement holders of the second agreement had given a complaint in Cr.No.2694 of 2007 for a similar offence. Both the cases have been investigated by the respondent police and charge sheets have been filed in C.C.No.155 and 156 of 2009.

6. Meanwhile, one Rama Ravindra Kumar, who claims to be the broker, had also given a complaint that he was promised by the petitioners certain commission which was not paid to him and therefore, he had given a complaint alleging offences under Secs.406 and 408 IPC and the same has been registered in Cr.No.229 of 2010 by Maduravoyal Police Station. Seeking to quash the charge sheet as well the FIR, the petitioners are now before this court invoking the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C by way of present criminal original petitions.

7. Mr.K. Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit the following points for consideration:

a) the defacto-complainants have filed civil suits for specific performance of the contract in O.S.No.181 of 2007 and 182 of 2007 and they are pending trial. Therefore, the dispute is purely civil in nature and there is no criminality.

b) the sale agreements were entered into in the year 2003 and 2005 and the time is the essence of the contract and the agreement holders are not ready and willing to perform their part of contract and therefore, out of love and affection, the 1st petitioner executed the gift settlement deed in favour of her children. Therefore, there is no cheating.

c) there is no deception at the inception of the agreement and the offence under Sec.420 IPC cannot be drawn into.

d) in both the complaints, the allegations and the facts being one and the same, the 2nd complaint cannot be entertained.

e) the complainant one Rama Ravindra Kumar with a view to cheat the aged 1st petitioner, under the guise that he would remove the encroachers, obtained power deeds and is now trying to take away the property and there is no question of the petitioners cheating the all