M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.

1. The above Crl. O.P. and Crl. R.C. are arising between the same parties and the issues involved in both the cases are one and the same and therefore the issues are dealt with jointly and thereby the order is passed as common order.

2. It is the case of the revision petitioner that there was a sale agreement dated 03.01.2006 entered between the revision petitioner as purchaser and the accused Nos. 2 to 4/respondents as vendors in respect of property comprised in old Survey No. 68, New Town Survey No. 4870/1 measuring to an extent of 8 grounds and 1303 sq. ft. of land and building situated at Dr. Nair road, T. Nagar, Chennai. The sale agreement stood entered between the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 through the power agent of the accused 2 and 3 namely Smt. Vijayasanthi, the 1st accused. The sale consideration was arrived at a sum of Rs. 5.20 crores for which a sum of Rs. 4,07,00,000/- was paid as advance by the revision petitioner to the 1st accused on 09.01.2006 on the date of sale agreement itself.

3. In furtherance of the sale agreement all the parental documents were handed over to the revision petitioner. Thereafter, when the revision petitioner approached the 1st accused as well as the other accused to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,13,00,000/- and execute the sale deed, it was intentionally evaded by them. Being so, it was found that during the subsistence of the sale agreement of the petitioner, the above extent of property was alienated to the 5th accused. It is significant to note that the very same 1st accused herein namely Vijayasanthi who acted as power agent of vendors, has alienated the above property in favour of the 5th accused. Moreover, it was found that the total sale consideration was mentioned as Rs. 2,56,28,750/- in the sale deed in favour of the 5th respondent.

4. The above transaction has established that all the accused together have entered in conspiracy defrauded and cheated the revision petitioner by alienating/registering the disputed subject of property in favour of the 5th respondent. Thereafter getting knowledge of the above fraudulent sale, the revision petitioner filed a complaint before the police authority to take criminal action for the cheating committed by the accused. However, at the instance of the accused, by stating the revision petitioner’s complaint as involving civil dispute, the police authority relegated the petitioner to approach a civil forum.

5. That apart taking criminal action over the fraudulent act of the accused attracting Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and 506(ii) of IPC, the revision petitioner so as to declare the sale deed executed in favour of 5th respondent as null and void also availed his civil remedy by filing Civil Suit in C.S. No. 189 of 2009 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.

6. Whereas due to the closure of his complaint by the police authority as stated above, the petitioner was again constrained to seek his remedy for Criminal Action under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by filing a complaint in Crl. M.P. No. 857 of 2010 before the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. Misfortunately the said complaint too came to be dismissed by the learned judge by holding that the remedy available for the revision petitioner is only a suit for specific performance. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court by way of this criminal revision in Crl. R.C. No. 1214 of 2010.

7. In the meantime, the revision petitioner filed another private complaint in Crl. M.P. No. 2308 of 2011 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai praying for an appropriate criminal action by directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch, Chennai. The said complaint was taken on file and the same was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and there was a further direction to file the corresponding report. A