The central legal point established in the judgment is that the elements of forgery, cheating, and conspiracy must be clearly established to prosecute an individual under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records connected with the CC No 4 of 2022, pending on the file of the Court, Land Grabbing Court II Allikulam Court Complex, Chennai-3 and to quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2022, on the file of the Special Court No.II for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Chennai, for offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of IPC.

2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.4 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court No.II for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Chennai. The case of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant emanates from the sequence of events narrated below. The 2nd respondent's father Dr.Rama Pandiyaraj was the original owner of the property measuring 1.04 acres, out of which 2 grounds and 1613 sq.ft. is the area in dispute. The 2nd respondent in his complaint, dated 02.04.2012 with the Commissioner of Police, Egmore has alleged that A3 along with one Kantha Praveen Mehta/A1 and Kumar Praveen Mehta/petitioner/A2 conspired and fabricated documents in order to grab this property of 2 grounds and 1613 sq.ft. Further, one Adalarasan had fabricated a power of attorney in the year 2004-2005 for the said 2 grounds and 1613 sq.ft. and obtained a patta in C.A.37/04/05 in the name of Kantha Praveen Mehta/A1. Based on the 2nd respondent's complaint on this, the patta was cancelled by the District Collector in the year 2011. In the meanwhile, Kantha Praveen Mehta/A1 made a confirmation deed of "an oral settlement" of the said property to her son Kumar Praveen Mehta, the petitioner herein in the year 2010 and document No.2019 of 2010 states that the oral settlement was as early as in the year 1987. Based on this confirmation deed, the property measuring 2 grounds and 1613 sq.ft., was sold to one A3 through a registered sale deed, dated 18.08.2010, vide document No.6083 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.384 of 2012, for offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 120(b) of IPC was registered against Kantha Praveen Mehta/A1, Kumar Praveen Mehta/petitioner/A2 and Chellappa/A3. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.4 of 2022.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the very issue whether the sale executed in favour of A3 by the petitioner was decided by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.570 of 2013, dated 17.07.2018 and held that the 2nd respondent is attempting to grab the property, which was already been sold by his father in the year 1961 and that the allegations of the 2nd respondent of forgery and impersonation has no iota of truth in it. As against the order of this Court, dated 17.07.2018 in Crl.O.P.No.570 of 2013, the 2nd respondent approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P(Crl.)No.7930 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on 13.09.2019. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that merely levelling a charge of conspiracy without mentioning how, where, why and which of the conspirators hatched the conspiracy and for what purpose, or circumstances warranting an inference of existence of a conspiracy, is not enough to bring the petitioner to face a trial in a criminal court.

4. He would further submit that to constitute an offence of cheating, two ingredients have to be satisfied [1] to deceive a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action and [2] fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit and that since in the instant case, there are no ingred