ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.451 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem, thereby taken cognizances for the offences under Sections 120B, 420 & 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had obtained a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioners 1 & 2 on 23.04.1998 and executed a general power of attorney in respect of her property ad measuring 3068½ sq.ft., comprised in Survey No.145/4A situated at Neikarapatti Village in favour of the second petitioner. It is alleged that after having settled the entire loan amount along with interest, the second petitioner failed to cancel the power of attorney and executed a sale deed in favour of his brother viz., the first petitioner herein. Thereafter, the first petitioner sold out the said property to the petitioners 3 to 5 on 13.02.2017, thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there are totally five accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A5. According to the defacto complainant, the property comprised in survey No.145/4A ad measuring 3068½ situated at Neikarapatti Village purchased by her by the sale deed dated 15.09.1994. Thereafter, she borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and executed Power of Attorney in favour of the second accused i.e., the second petitioner herein in respect of the said property. In turn, the second accused executed sale deed in favour of the first accused in the year 2001. Thereafter A1 executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners 3 to 5 in the year 2017, by the registered sale deed dated 13.02.2017. Therefore, even according to the defacto complainant, the entire sale consideration was received by her and having been waiting for 21 years from the date of execution of power of attorney, now she came forward with the present complaint with the above said allegations. No offence is made out as against the petitioners, since all the allegations are civil in nature. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the entire proceeding as against the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2019 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet in C.C.No.451 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem and the trial is pending. He further submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioners cannot considered by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., since they cheated the defacto complainant in respect of the subject property.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the second petitioner/accused and for security purpose, she executed power of attorney in respect of the subject property in his favour. After having been repaid the entire amount with interest, to the tune of Rs.4,60,000/- the second petitioner failed to cancel the power of attorney. In turn, he sold out the property in favour of the first accused, who is none other than his own brother. Thereafter, in the year 2017, the first petitioner/accused sold out the property to the petitioners/accused 3 to 5. Therefore, all the accused conspired together and cheated the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

6. Heard Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the first respondent and Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

7. There are totally five accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A5. The property comprised in survey No.145/4A ad measuring 3068½ sq.ft., in plot No.10 situated at Neikarapatti Village,