This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.63 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and quash the same.

2. The 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent/Police making certain allegations against the petitioners herein and two others and in a nutshell, the prosecution story is as under.

3. One D.Mariappan, who was the owner of the property comprised in S.No.18/10, admeasuring to an extent of 726 Sq.ft. situated in Kundrathur Village, had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in respect of the said property on 09.09.2008. However, the said D.Mariappan cancelled the Power of Attorney granted to the 2nd respondent herein on 07.11.2008 and on the very same day, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of the disputed property. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner on 12.11.2008.

4. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is that the said D.Mariappan in cahoots with the 1st petitioner herein with an intent to cheat the 2nd respondent had caused huge loss to him, the 2nd respondent made a complaint to the 1st respondent/Police, who conducted enquiry and registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.442 of 2009 under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420 read with 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and filed a charge sheet on 04.05.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Kancheepuram District.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in question originally belonged to one S.Balakrishnan and he executed a sale deed on 03.05.2007 in favour of the said D.Mariappan. The said D.Mariappan had originally executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd respondent on 09.09.2008 and since the 2nd respondent acted against the interest of the said D.Mariappan and violated the terms of the Power of Attorney and acted beyond the capacity of the Power of Attorney, the said D.Mariappan cancelled the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the 2nd respondent on 07.11.2008 vide Document No.1283 of 2008 registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Pammal and the same was communicated to the 2nd respondent on 17.11.2008.

6. It is the plea of the petitioners that the said D.Mariappan executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st petitioner on 07.11.2008 vide Document No.1284 of 2008 registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Pammal, and on payment of the entire sale consideration to the said D.Mariappan, the 1st petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent.

7. The case of the petitioners is that the said D.Mariappan cancelled the Power of Attorney granted in favour of the 2nd respondent as the 2nd respondent acted in violation of the terms of the Power of Attorney and therefore, with an intention to wreak vengeance, the 2nd respondent with malafide intention and ulterior motive had lodged the complaint as an instrument of harassment, for seeking private vendetta to pressurize the accused.

8. Drawing the attention of this Court to the fact that the 2nd respondent has filed O.S.No.509 of 2009, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sriperumbudur, to declare that the sale deed executed by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner dated 12.11.2008 as null and void and the suit is still pending adjudication by the Civil Court. It was pleaded by the petitioners that it is explicitly clear that the present criminal proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

9. In such circumstances, the petitioners were filed this Crl.O.P. No.27423 of 2010 against the respondents for quash the charge sheet pending in C.C.No.63 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

10. At this juncture, it is to be noted that on 03.03.2011, this Court granted an order of