IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
R. Jayaraman & Others - Petitioner
Versus
K. Ganesan & Others - Respondent
Crl. OP. No. 10920 of 2017 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 7295 & 7296 of 2017
Decided on : 19-11-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 – Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 - Chit Amount - Property Leased - Original Documents - Case of Complaint that, respondents had handed over chit amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to petitioners 1, 3 and one Ranganathan - However, in spite of receipt of amount, above said persons demanded more interest to a tune of a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- from first respondent - When first respondent approached petitioners 1 and 3 with interest amount, he was informed that property has been leased in favour of third parties for a period of three years and after competition of three years, amount will be received and original documents will be handed over - Even after lapse of three years, above said persons refused to accept amount and also refused to hand over original documents and also possession to respondents - Respondents preferred a Complaint before Inspector of Police – Held, Respondents have executed Power of Attorney and handed over original title documents, since they were not able to repay back Chit amount - Therefore, only if there is a material to show that this Chit amount was repaid back and in spite of it, Sale Deeds were executed in favour of petitioners 2, 5 and 6, there can be a prima facie case for cheating - However, in this case respondents have neither produced receipt for alleged repayment nor have they annexed Power of Attorney documents and Sale Deeds along with Complaint and this Court is not able to understand as to how Court below took cognizance of Private Complaint under Section 420 of IPC - Ingredients of Section 420 IPC, as spoken by Honble Apex Court, has not been satisfied in this case - There is absolutely no fraudulent or dishonest intention on part of petitioners at inception - This Court is also of considered view that issue involved is purely Civil in nature, and same has been given a criminal colour - There respondents have already filed suit against petitioners claiming for various reliefs including relief of declaration of title and it is for respondents to establish same before Competent Civil Court, where suit is pending - Continuation of Private Complaint will amount to an abuse of process of Court and it requires interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under 482 of Cr.P.C – Petition Allowed.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.2 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur, Salem District.
2. The case as found in the Private Complaint is that the de-facto Complainant was conducting a Chit Business at Attur till the year 2004, and petitioners 1 to 4 were subscribers to the said Chit and had paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-. This amount was not settled by the first respondent, and therefore petitioners 1 to 4 compelled the first respondent to execute a Power of Attorney in their favour. Left with no other option of the respondents executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first petitioner, and the same was duly registered before the Sub Registrar, Attur. The first petitioner also compelled the respondents to hand over the original title deed which was a Sale Deed dated 23.08.1993. Thereafter, the second and third petitioners compelled the respondents to register another Power of Attorney and took the original title deed. Similarly, the fourth petitioner also got a Power of Attorney executed in his favour on 25.08.2004, and also received the original title deed. That apart, the petitioners also obtained signatures in three blank stamp papers. The petitioners promised that, immediately after the repayment of the chit amount of Rs.8,50,000/- they will cancel the Power of Attorney document and hand over the original title deeds.
3. It is the further case in the Complaint that on 03.11.2004, the respondents had handed over the chit amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to petitioners 1, 3 and one Ranganathan. However, in spite of the receipt of the amount, the above said persons demanded more interest to a tune of a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- from the first respondent. When the first respondent approached the petitioners 1 and 3 with the interest amount, he was informed that the property has been leased in favour of third parties for a period of three years and after the competition of three years, the amount will be received and the original documents will be handed over. Even after the lapse of three years, the above said persons refused to accept the amount and also refused to hand over the original documents and also the possession to the respondents.
4. The respondents preferred a Complaint before the Inspector of Police, Attur on 16.08.2009, against the petitioners and the said Complaint, after enquiry, was closed by advising the parties to workout their grievance before the Civil Court. Thereafter, the respondents came to know that the property has been sold in favour of petitioners 2, 5 and 6 by way of a registered Sale Deed and the names in the revenue records were also changed. Subsequently, a Panchayat was conducted but it ended in a failure. Thereafter, a Complaint was given to the land grabbing wing, but no action was taken. Therefore, the present Criminal Compliant has been filed against the petitioners for an offence under Section 420 IPC. The Court below has also taken cognizance of the Complaint against all the petitioners for an offence under Section 420 IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents have already filed a Civil Suit before the learned Additional District Judge No.II, Salem, in P.O.P. No.118 of 2016, seeking for a declaration of all the documents as null and void, and also seeking for a further relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction, and therefore, the respondents cannot parallely prosecute a Private Complaint on the same cause of action. The learned counsel would further submit that the alleged incident is said to have happened in the year 2004 to 2007, but, however a Complaint has been given only in the year 2017, and the suit has been filed in the year 2016, and that itself will show that the respondents are trying to revive a completed transaction. The learned counsel would further submit that no offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out even on the entire
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.