The main legal point established in the judgment is that the abuse of confidence, fraudulent transactions, and the interplay between civil and criminal proceedings can constitute prima facie criminal offences, even if a civil suit is pending.

1. The complainant in a private complaint is the petitioner. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., challenge is made to the order dated 08.04.2008 in M.P.No.1853 of 2008 passed by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15 dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner. The respondents were shown as the accused in the private complaint, wherein, the petitioner made a prayer to take the complaint on the file alleging that the respondents/accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420, 423, 506(ii) read with Sections 34 and 109 IPC.

2. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the property at K.K.Nagar, having purchased the same by a Registered Sale Deed dated 20.01.1988 and he constructed a superstructure by availing house building advance from his employer- Tamil Nadu Housing Board and created mortgage in favour of the Board to secure the loan. The mortgage was duly registered in Document No.1304/1989. It is further stated that the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.3.25 lakhs from the first respondent/first accused on various dates.

3. It is further stated that the petitioner had divorced his wife and during 1994; he was transferred to Villupuram; at that stage, the first accused demanded for repayment of the money; therefore, the complainant on 25.05.1995 executed an agreement to sell the property, agreeing to sell the property for total consideration of Rs.4,75,000/-and the loan amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to be treated as advance. In terms of the agreement, the first accused undertook to discharge the mortgage loan to Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-to be paid to the complainant. Taking advantage of the strained relationship between the complainant and his divorced wife, it is stated that the first accused demanded handing over of the possession of the property and though the divorced wife of the complainant was in possession of the property, in the agreement, there was recital that the possession was handed over to the first accused. On the date, when the agreement for sale was entered into, a Power of Attorney was executed by the complainant in favour of the second accused/wife of the first accused. In the recitals in the said Power of Attorney, it is stated as if the possession was handed over to the second accused.

4. It is the case of the complainant that General Power of Attorney was given only as security for the loan of Rs.3,25,000/-. It is further stated that there was a specific understanding that the Power of Attorney would be acted only if the divorced wife of the complainant created any problem. It is stated that as against the decree of divorce, the wife filed C.M.A.No.3865/2005 before this Court, which is stated to have been pending at the time of filing of the private complaint.

5. Even prior to this, the divorced wife of the complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.4123/1995 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for decree for permanent injunction, wherein, the first and second accused were also impleaded as defendants. The first accused filed O.S.No.4320/1995 before the City Civil Court for a decree for mandatory injunction to direct the divorced wife of the complainant to deliver vacant possession of the property as per the agreement for sale. It is stated that the suit was not filed for any specific performance of the agreement for sale. As the complainant cooperated with the first accused/plaintiff, O.S.No.4320/1995 was decreed on 28.10.2004. The first accused filed E.P.No.568/2005 and took possession of the property through Court and delivery was recorded on 27.06.2006. It is stated that the second accused, the Power of Attorney Holder, the wife of the first accused did not exercise her right under the Power of Attorney at that stage.

6. It is the further case of the complainant that the first accused did not discharge the mortgage loan as per the undertaking and he agreed to p