The court affirmed the trial Judge's decision to return original sale deed documents to purported bona fide purchasers, ruling the de-facto complainant lacked established title over the property.

JUDGMENT :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge in Crl.M.P. No. 51847 of 2024 on the file of the CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the petitioner / de-facto complainant has preferred the Criminal Revision Case No.1788 of 2024.

2. Before the trial Court, the second respondent herein, namely R.Balaji filed an application under Sections 451 read with 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , seeking return of the original four sale deed documents dated 21.10.2022, bearing Document Nos. 5338/2022, 5339/2022, 5340/2022 and 5341/2022, pending investigation in Crime No. 231 of 2023. The said application was contested by the de-facto complainant / revision petitioner by filing an intervening application, as well as by the learned Government Pleader. The de-facto complainant raised objections to the return of the documents. However, after hearing the learned Government Pleader, the learned trial Judge allowed Crl.M.P. No. 51847 of 2024 and ordered return of the documents to the applicant therein. Consequently, the intervening application filed by the de-facto complainant in Crl.M.P. No. 53828 of 2024 was closed. Aggrieved by the said order, the de-facto complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision.

3. The brief facts of the case: The de-facto complainant is a private limited company under the name and style of Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the business of manufacturing flush doors and furniture. The company is the absolute owner of a property measuring an extent of 30.9 cents, comprised in Old Survey No. 155/1, Town Survey No. 4/1, Block No. 34, situated at No. 106, Koyambedu Village, Aminjikarai Taluk, Chennai District. With an intention to grab the petitioner’s said property, Villivakkam Velu (A1) and his son Nagarajan (A2), in connivance with the M.S.S. Transport Group concern and its partners (A3 to A6), along with Rajakumari (A7) and Vasudevan (A8), entered into a criminal conspiracy at Koyambedu.

4. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the accused persons created a bogus patta in the name of A1, Villivakkam Velu, as though it had been issued by the Tahsildar of Aminjikarai Taluk on 05.11.2007. Using the said forged patta, A1 executed a registered settlement deed dated 25.08.2020 in favour of his son, A2. Based on the said settlement deed, A2 executed four sale deeds dated 21.10.2022, conveying four different portions of the petitioner’s property in favour of A3 to A6. A7 and A8 signed as witnesses to the said settlement deed. Upon coming to know of these fraudulent acts, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent police, based on which an FIR was registered in Crime No. 213 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 447, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with 34 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, all the accused were arrested and subsequently released on bail.

5. While so, the second respondent herein (R.Balaji) filed Crl.M.P. No. 51847 of 2024 before the trial Court under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), seeking return of the original four sale deeds. He claimed that he is engaged in transport business under the name and style of M/s. Mettur Transport, a partnership firm. According to him, the partners of the firm intended to purchase the property after coming to know about the sale offer made by A1 through a mediator. I