Criminal liability under IPC requires clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing, which was absent; thereby, genuine civil disputes cannot sustain criminal charges.

ORDER :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the CC.No.84 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram at Poonamallee and quash the same.

2. Originally, this petition was listed before the single bench its vide order dated 10.08.2023, observed that “by order dated 30.06.2023, the learned Division Bench ordered to place this matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In view of the above, the Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.”

2(i). It is pertinent to mention that Crl.OP.No.14658 of 2023 has been filed to call for the records connected with CC.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for PMLA Cases, Chennai and quash the same.

2(iii). As ordered by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, vide office note Order dated 17.10.2023, both the Crl.OP.Nos.16929 of 2017 and 14658 of 2023 were listed before the Division Bench dealing with Criminal matters. On 22.10.2024, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.14658 of 2023 has withdrawn the case, hence the same was dismissed as withdrawn and Crl.OP.No.16929 of 2017 was adjourned for further proceedings.

3. By consent of both parties we have taken up the present petition for adjudication.

The Gist of the prosecution case is as follows :-

4. The defacto complainant along with the petitioner/A1 and A2/Ravi have jointly purchased the immovable properties situated at Tiruvallur District, Ambattur Taluk, 39, Pammathikulam village, Old Patta No.1185 in (i) S.Nos.550/1, 550/1A & 550/1B to an extent of 4.04 acres (ii)S.No.551/1 to an extent of 27.30 acres (iii)S.No.551/3 to an extent of 7.45 acres and (iv)S.No.554/5 to an extent of 1.59 acres totally to an extent of 40 acres 38 cents from one Syed Abdul Ajiz and 3 others on 30.04.1999, under the Registered sale deed vide Doc.Nos.941/2000, 942/2000 and 943/2000. On 18.05.2005, the defacto complainant had executed a General Power of Attorney deed in favour of the petitioner/A1 for the purpose of obtaining subsidy loan from Central Government to build a warehouse, for storage of agricultural products. By misusing the said Power of Attorney deed, petitioner/A1 had executed sale deeds in favour of his wife/Amutha, daughters/Kanimozhi and Ezhilmozhi, his brother's son Dinesh Kumar, his relatives and also to other persons, to an extent of 12 acres 89 cents of land from the undivided share. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, at that point of time petitioner/A1 was associated with former Minister Veerapandi Arumugam and threatened the defacto complainant. At that time, A2/Ravi was also present along with petitioner/A1. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had cancelled the general power of attorney deed on 31.08.2006. Even after cancelling the power of attorney deed, subsequently, on 09.10.2006 and 01.11.2006, the petitioner/A1 had sold out the remaining part of lands to an extent of 12 acres 10 cents, without informing to the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, petitioner/A1 threatened him and said that he will kill him. Hence the defacto complainant lodged a complaint to recover the lands to an extent of 10acres and to take action. The Chennai, Central Crime Branch police had registered the case in Cr.No.225 of 2011 under Section 465 , 468 r/w.471 &420 IPC.

5. After completion of investigation, the 1^st respondent/complainant has laid down the final report before the concerned Court. In the final report wherein states hereunder : -

5 (i). In the month of May 2005, the petitioner/A1 and A2/Ravi had conspired tog