The court emphasized the statutory right and duty of the police to investigate cognizable offences and the sparing exercise of quashing power.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.45 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.)

1. This petition is filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.45 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent.

2. According to the petitioners, they have been arrayed as accused by the first respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 467, 468, 470, 420, 506(ii) of IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that A1 is parental uncle of A2 and A3. The accused A2 and A3 are sons of A4. The defacto complainant approached A1 who is land broker, for purchasing a house and A1 introduced A2 and A3 who are jointly owned two houses in Door Nos.18A and 18B1 situated in Survey No.160/2 and 160/3 at Lakshmipuram Village. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.9,62,500/-. The registration fee and broker commission comes around Rs.2,16,450/-, which was paid and on 08.11.2018, A2 and A3 executed registered sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. The sale deed was executed in the presence of A1 and A4. After purchasing the house, the defacto complainant came to know that the suit property was mortgaged to Arumuganeri Co-operative Housing Board Society. Thereafter the defacto complainant contacted A1 to A4 and enquired about the loan transaction for which they did not give any proper reply and they threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Therefore, the defacto complainant has lodged the present complaint.

4. No counter was filed by the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners 2 and 3 executed a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. A1 and A4 are not aware of the sale deed. According to the prosecution, A2 and A3 alone executed sale deed but A1 is acting as a mediator. No overt act against the fourth petitioner. This matter is purely civil in nature. Even according to the prosecution, no offence is made out against the petitioners and the FIR is liable to be quashed.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would contend that the second respondent had given a complaint before the respondent police and on that basis, they registered FIR and thereafter, investigated the case and filed a final report. As per final report, the offences made against all the accused. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

8. The main contention of the petitioners is that they have no intention to cheat the second respondent and originally the father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and husband of the fourth petitioner purchased the property in the year 2005 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the year 2015, they entered into partition and thereafter, some property was sold to the defacto complainant in the year 2018 by the petitioners 2 and 3. It is admitted fact that the petitioners 2 and 3 executed a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant with regard to the disputed property. According to the defacto complainant, A1 and A4 are mediators. After investigation, the first respondent have filed final report as against all the accused.

9. As per final report, the vendor of the father of the petitioners 2 and 3 mortgaged the property to Arumuganeri Co-operative Housing Board Society and thereafter, the said Society filed a civil suit as against the vendor and thereafter, sale notice was affixed in the disputed property. After seeing that, all the petitioners approached One Innocent, who was the original owner and asked about he mortgage to the Manager of Arumuganeri Co-operative Housing Board Society and thereafter the said Innocent narrated about the mortgage of the property and then the A2 and A3 sold the property to the defacto complaint. A1 and A4 are also attested in the said sale deed