ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 120(B) & 420 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the subject property belonging to the mutt and it was leased to the petitioner's father viz., V.S.Sivarajan by the previous madathipathi. The defacto complainant is the present madathipathi of the mutt and he filed suit against the previous madathipathi and recovered the possession of the subject property from the lease holder through the Sub Court, Kancheepuram in O.S.No.21 of 1973. Further the defacto complainant filed execution petition in E.P.No.138 of 2000 and the same is pending. In the mean time, the petitioner approached the defacto complainant and assured that he will not contest the case filed by the defacto complainant and sought for continuing the lease property which was already leased out to his father. Therefore, new lease agreement dated 23.12.2002 was entered between the petitioner and the defacto complainant for a period of 20 years with monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-.

3. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the first accused viz., Selvaraj, who worked as Assistant with the defacto complainant, colluded with each other and falsely informed the defacto complainant that the rent has to be enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and induced the defacto complainant to execute the second lease agreement. Accordingly, the defacto complainant executed the second lease agreement dated 21.01.2004, without knowing the fact that the lease period was mentioned as ninety nine years, thereby the petitioner gained wrongfully and caused loss to the mutt. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.72 of 2009. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.43 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 12B, 420 of IPC. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent was informed and he well aware of the second lease agreement for the period of 99 years. The enhancement of rent from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and enhancement of lease amount would itself clear that both the parties agreed for the same and executed before the Registrar. As per the lease agreement itself, the petitioner can very well sub-lease the subject property. Accordingly, the petitioner also sub-leased the subject property for the period of 30 years to the Indian Oil Corporation. In fact, the second agreement for lease was entered between the petitioner and the defacto complainant only for the purpose of sub-lease the subject property to the Indian Oil Corporation. Therefore, no offence is made out for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Now the civil dispute is converted into criminal case that too without attracting any of the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

4.1. He further submitted that the second respondent is estopped from lodging any complaint, since he himself is a party and had executed the lease agreement dated 21.01.2004 before the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, he cannot take contrary stand that the content of the lease agreement was wrongly inserted by the petitioner. In fact, the second agreement for lease has been acted upon and accordingly, the petitioner executed sub lease agreement to the Indian Oil Corporation and also promptly paying the rent as per the agreement to the second respondent and the same was also duly received by him.

4.2. Further, the agreement was executed on 21.01.2004 and the complaint was lodged only in the year 2009. There is absolutely no reasons for the delay in lodgment of the complaint. After executing of the lease agreement, the second respondent is enjoying the benefit on the one hand and on the another hand, disputed the document and l