JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records in C.C. No.337 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet and quash the same.)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of C.C. No.337 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent herein had a requirement for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) for performing the marriage of his daughter for which through one Thanigaivelan @ Ravi, he got introduced to the 1st petitioner/A-1 and though the 2nd respondent proposed to lease out 2 acres of land from out of the 10 acres of land owned by him in Guduvancherry, Perumattunallur Panchayat in turn for getting the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, A-1 refused to accept the offer and insisted that if at all the 2nd respondent wants the amount, he may execute a sale deed parting with 2 acres of land in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent parted with the said portion of land in return for valuable consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the 2nd petitioner by execution of sale deed, registered as Document No.3150/2009 dated 2.9.09 at Sub Registrar’s Office, Thiruporur.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, alleging that when he approached the petitioners to repay the principal amount along with interest on 25.8.13, the 1st petitioner refused to part away with the said lands by way of reconveyance to the 2nd respondent and, in fact, threatened the 2nd respondent with dire consequences, which resulted in the filing of the complaint on 25.8.13 before the Inspector of Police, B-2, Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram and enquiry by the said investigating officer led to the conclusion that the dispute is civil in nature and, therefore, the complaint given by the 2nd respondent was closed as mistake of fact and RCS notice was also served on the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant on 27.9.13.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that aggrieved by the above closure of the complaint, the 2nd respondent preferred a petition before this Hon’ble Court in Crl. O.P. No.8406 of 2013 for appointment of some other investigating agency to investigate the crime committed by the accused/petitioners and this Court has recorded a finding that civil suits in O.S. Nos.130 ad 2012 and 12 of 2013 are pending before the Sub Court, Chengalpet, which materials were perused by the police authorities/investigating agency before closing the complaint, as there was no impersonation, forgery and cheating. However, this Court, gave liberty to the 2nd respondent that if at all he is aggrieved, he may approach the concerned Magistrate by invoking Section 156 (3) or 200 Cr.P.C.

5. In the above backdrop, the 2nd respondent lodged another complaint before the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram on 11.12.2013 and as there was no action on the said complaint, Crl. O.P. No.1173 of 2014 was preferred before this Court for a direction to the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram to register a FIR on the basis of his complaint dated 11.12.2013 and this Court, vide order dated 4.8.14, observed that as the present complaint is on a different cause of action, direction was given to the police authorities therein to hold preliminary enquiry on the complaint in the presence of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent in accordance with law and the parties were given liberty to produce all the documents at the time of enquiry and subject to the outcome of the enquiry, the respondent police therein was directed to proceed in accordance with law. However, the 2nd respondent, clubbing both the complaints into a single complaint, subverting the new cause of action, had made the allegations against the petitioners, which has be