ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.10 of 2020 registered on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners enter into a sale agreement for an extent of 15 acres comprised in Survey Nos.1844, 1844/1, 1846 situated at North Valliyur, 1st Bit Village, for a sum of Rs.6,50,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores and Fifty Lakhs only), on 20.02.2018. The sale agreement was not registered. However, the petitioners and the second respondent have agreed to honour their commitments given to each other. On the same day, a token advance of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) was paid to the second respondent. On receipt of the said amount, entire land was developed into house plots. Application for layout approval has been presented under the Town and Country Planning Act and accordingly, the entire land was developed into house plots. Earlier agreement for sale, dated 20.02.2018 was once again modified on 04.06.2018, for total sale consideration of Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs only). Due to time constraints, one another sale agreement was executed on 19.02.2019, modifying the earlier two agreements and hiked the amount to Rs.8,25,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Twenty Five Lakhs only). Once again on 18.07.2019, another agreement for sale was executed for a sum of Rs.8,75,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Crores Seventy Five Lakhs only). While being so, the Local Planning Authority granted Layout Plan Approval in the second respondent's name vide proceedings, dated 20.09.2018. Accordingly, 244 house plots were developed and almost all the house plots were sold in the year 2018-2020. Accordingly, the second respondent duly executed sale deed in favour of the purchasers. While being so, again the second respondent on 03.01.2019, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the one, Gopala Shanmuga Sigamani, for the very same property. There were some disputes with regard to the payment and as such, the second respondent lodged a complaint. The first respondent issued a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C for enquiry. The petitioners have appeared for the enquiry and submitted that the dispute is regarding the calculation of the amount and it would not amount to any cheating. Recording the said submission, the said complaint was closed. In spite of explanation and documents submitted by the petitioners, the first respondent called upon the petitioners for an enquiry. Therefore, the petitioners issued a legal notice, dated 12.12.2019 to the second respondent, thereby, calling upon the second respondent to accept the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) and handed over the cheques. The said notice was duly received by the second respondent and reply was also sent on 24.12.2019.

3. While being so, the petitioners have also filed a petition to direct the first respondent Police not to harass the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.560 of 2020 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 issued guidelines to the first respondent. Even then the first respondent registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No.10 of 2020, for the offence under Section 120(b), 406 and 420 IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly there was business transaction between the petitioners and the second respondent. During the course of business, they have entered into agreement for sale. However, no agreement of sale was registered and no power has been given to the petitioners for the sale deed registered in favour of the third parties. The second respondent executed the sale deed on receipt of the entire sale consideration.

5. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in

2021 6 Supreme Court 529, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

“28.It is beyond dispute that a sale deed is required to be registered i.e. a document required by law to be reduced to the form of a documen