O R D E R

This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.5738 of2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB cases and CBCID cases, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the second respondent / defecto complainant was looking for a property, the accused A1 and A2 had offered to sell their property admeasuring 32.12 acres situated at Village Bo.53, Perumbakkam Village, Madurantagam Revenue Taluk, Kancheepuram District for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,36,15,000/-. Believing their representation, the second respondent / defecto complainant had entered into an unregistered agreement for sale dated 21.03.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as advance consideration. The accused A1 and A2 had agreed to execute the Sale Deed within a period of two months from the date of agreement.

3. Though the second respondent / defacto complainant was ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount, the accused A1 and A2 had refused to execute the same. Later, the second respondent / defecto complainant came to an understanding that the property was already mortgaged with the Bank of Baroda, who in turn had initiated legal proceedings to recover the borrowed amount by selling the property before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Hence, the second respondent has filed a complaint dated 01.02.2016 before the first respondent.

4. Initially, the complaint was not taken for consideration and as such, the second respondent had approached this Court by filing a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.15154 of 2017 and as per the direction of this Court by order dated 08.08.2017, the first respondent has registered a case in CCB I, Crime No.314 of 2017 for offences under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent had filed the final report and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

5. The specific case of the petitioner is that admittedly, they have entered into an agreement for sale with the second respondent along with his brother viz., A2 for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,36,15,000/- and received a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-, as advance. Insofar as the subject property admeasuring 32.12 acres is concerned, the same was purchased by them in the year 2004 by a registered sale deed from their vendor, who in turn seemed to have borrowed loan from the Bank of Baroda in the year 1993 itself. Thereafter, the vendor has committed default and as such, the subject property was under the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It was suppressed by the vendor and executed Sale Deed in their favour and therefore, the petitioner is neither the borrower nor mortgaged the property anyway. Immediately after coming to an understanding about the proceedings initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the accused had challenged the recovery order and subsequently, the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal deferred the sale and upheld the claim in their favour by order dated 18.07.2013. Therefore, the accused A1 and A2 had entered into an unregistered agreement with the second respondent for sale on 21.03.2015. However, in the year 2016, the Bank of Baroda filed an appeal in Appeal No.1 of 2016 against the order of the Land Recovery Officer before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and the same was allowed by order dated 04.12.2018. Therefore, the petitioner and accused A1 and A2 could not be able to execute the Sale Deed as aggrieved by them. However, before filing the final report itself the accused had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the second respondent and thereby, agreed to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the land admeasuring 10.19 acres. Accordingly, the accused persons have executed a Sale Deed in favour of the wife of the second respondent in respect of the land admeasuring 10.19 acres by a registered Sale Deed vide Document No.3230 of 2017 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Madhu