The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of the prosecution was an abuse of process of law, as the allegations did not establish an offense and had been rejected in previous litigations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to call for the records in C.C.No.1828 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and quash the same as against the petitioners.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1828 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai which was taken on file on the basis of the private complaint for the offence under Section 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 r/w 34 and 120 I.P.C.

2. The crux of the allegations in the private complaint is as follows:

2.a. The defactco complainant and the accused 1 to 3 had financial dealings from the year 2005 till 2018 and the A1 advanced the finance towards the vehicles owned by the defacto complainant. At the time he has also obtained several documents relating to the property at Thanjavur and also in Chennai. When the matter stood thus, after accounts, a made over agreement was executed between the A1, defacto complainant and one R.R.Vasudevan on 23.5.2008, where Mr.R.R. Vasudevan agreed to pay a sum of Rs.79,00,000/- payable to the defacto complainant and paid to A1. Thereafter, the defacto complainant paid the remaining amount. However, he sought for return of documents on 30.08.2011 by way of a legal notice. However, the same was replied with false notice. Thereafter, the agreement has been created in respect of the Tanjavur property as against which a complaint was given by the defacto complainant and the same was registered in Cr.No.193 of 2012 as per the direction of this Court. Thereafter the same has been referred as Mistake of Fact and as against which he has also filed revision and appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court. Based on the above order he has also filed a separate private complaint in Tanjavur Court in C.C.No.41 of 2015 and the same is pending. Similarly, a suit filed by the 1st Accused was also dismissed by the 1st Additional District Court, Tanjavur in O.S.No.8 of 2012.

2.b. According to the defacto complainant, during the loan transaction he was induced to part with the documents and created documents. When the matter stood thus, now the 4th Accused being the man of A1 has filed a suit as if there is equitable mortgage in respect of the property at Adyar in C.S.No.79 of 2018 on the file of the this Court. Therefore, according to the defact complainant the accused has cheated him and sought action against the accused for various offences under Section 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 r/w 34 and 120 I.P.C. The above complaint was taken on filed by the learned IX Metropolitan Maghistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The same is sought to be quashed by way of this Criminal Original Petition.

3.a. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that though the earlier quash application was dismissed on the ground that since the trial Court has examined the witnesses and taken cognizance, the present quash application has been filed on some other grounds and other circumstances which has been suppressed in the court of law. When the court raised doubt about the maintainability of the second quash petition, this Court after considering the earlier order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13228 of 2015 and 19634 of 2016 by Order dated 09.03.2020 has entertained this petition considering the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Anil Khadkiwala vs. State of (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another [(2019) 17 SCC 294] the Apex court has held that second quash petition under the other circumstances is maintainable. Therefore, this present petition came for quashing the proceedings. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would mainly contend that this case is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Earlier round of litigation, the defacto complainant pressed into similar allegations an FIR was registered in Cr.No.193 of 2012. According to him t