The court established that legal professionals can also be implicated in fraudulent acts related to property transactions, reinforcing the need for thorough investigation in such cases.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.96 of 2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for Trial of Land Grabbing cases No.I, Egmore, in which cognizance was taken for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 34,109 & 201 of IPC, against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, in the year of 1949, one Raja S/o.Perumal had purchased a vacant land situated in old S.No.37/1 B, New Survey No.37/ B 2A, measuring about 4464 sq.ft at Jayashankar layout, Palavakkam Village, Sholinaganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District vide document No.557/1949. After his demise his legal heirs by name Radha Krishnan and Mani inherited the property. While being so on 06.02.1990 Said Radha Krishnan and Mani gave Power of attorney in favour of one Jaya Shankar while document No.79/1990. In pursuance of that the said D.Jaya Shankar sold the said property to one R.S.Kirubanandhan on behalf of his principles on 15.07.1993 vide document No. 2617/1993 registered at SRO, Adayar. From that day he is in possession and enjoyment over the property.

At this juncture A-2 impersonated himself to be Kirubananthan stating that original documents are missing preferred a complaint before the H-1, Washermenpet Police Station and obtained a missing certificate. With the aid of the same A-2 executed a settlement deed in favour of A1 vide document No.3603 of 2020 dated 31.07.2020 at SRO, Neelankarai. In the above said document A3 and A4 signed as a witness. In furtherance of the same on 17.08.2020 A1 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A5 vide document No.3654 of 2020 registered at SRO, Neelankarai. In the above said power of attorney document A6 and the petitioner A7 signed as a witnesses. On verification it is alleged that the defacto complainant gained knowledge over the above illegal act of the accuse, aggrieved over the same he lodged the complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged offence made by the prosecution. He further submitted that in the charge sheet it could be seen A2 impersonated himself to be Kirubananthan stating that original documents are missing preferred a complaint before the H1- Washermenpet Police Station and obtained a missing certificate. With the aid of same A2 executed a settlement deed in favour of A1 vide document No.3603 of 2020 dated 31.07.2020, SRO, Neelankarai. In the alleged document A3 and A4 were signed as a witnesses. At this juncture when the petitioner was in search of purchasing a land for constructing his house. A1 & A2 contacted the petitioner through land mediator. They persuaded the petitioner that their land is situated in a residential area and it also have good water resources. The petitioner went and verified the physical features of the land and after verifying the genuineness of documents he accepted for purchasing the said land. It is also an admitted fact through the charge sheet itself it could be seen the petitioner paid fourteen lakhs and then only obtained Power of Attorney from A1. After verifying the entire records on 17.08.2020 A1 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A5 vide Document No.3654 of 2020 registered at SRO, Neelankarai. After obtaining power the petitioner placed a board displaying the name and contact number of the petitioner in the site. Further during the time of executing the Power of Attorney all relevant documents relating to the property such as missing certificate settlement deed etc are all made as a part and parcel of the Power of attorney and then only it was executed in favour of the petitioner herein. All the above facts as well as the very admittance of unregistered agreement for sale by A1 to the petitioner, payment of fourteen lakhs by itself shows the petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser. He further submitted that there is no iota of evidene found against the petitioner i