IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 04.042025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.16756 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.10765 of 2023

1. Vijay

2. Saravanan

3. Rajith @ Ranjith Kumars

4. Durai ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Sankari, Salem District.

2. Prabakar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Cr.No.265 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same against the petitioners/A1 to A3 and A6 alone.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.R.VinothRaja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

for R1

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.265 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.265 of 2023 against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 406, and 506(ii) of IPC. The allegation is that the second respondent owned land comprised in Survey Nos. 360/2 and 360/1, to an extent of 11.09 acres, situated at Chunnambu Kuttai, Devakavundanur Village, Sankari, Salem District. In order to meet family expenses, including his daughter's marriage and his son's education, the second respondent decided to sell the said property and approached land brokers.

3. It is further alleged that there was a rumour regarding the absence of proper access to the said land. Consequently, the second respondent decided to avail a loan to the tune of Rs.1 crore. The land brokers allegedly insisted that the second respondent execute sale deeds in favour of the financiers first, after which the loan would be arranged. Believing their words, the second respondent executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, who were introduced by the land brokers as financiers. Accordingly, two sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject property. The petitioners allegedly assured that the loan amount would be paid subsequently. However, even after registration of the sale deeds, when the second respondent approached the petitioners, they failed to pay the loan amount and thereby allegedly cheated him to the tune of Rs.1 crore.

4. The learned Government appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to allow the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Adovate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

6. A perusal of the records reveals that the sale deeds were executed in favour of the second petitioner, and the property was valued at Rs.13,46,000/-, which was duly paid to the second respondent through RTGS to his bank account. Only upon receipt of the said sale consideration did the second respondent execute the two sale deeds, which were registered vide Document Nos. 1926/2020 and 1927/2021 on 16.07.2021.

7. After the purchase, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and have also caused the mutation of the revenue records in their favour. Despite this, the second respondent disturbed their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, prompting the petitioners to file separate suits in O.S. Nos. 77 and 78 of 2021 against the second respondent and his wife for permanent injunction. These suits are pending. Subsequently, the son of the second respondent filed a partition suit in O.S. No.356 of 2022 against the second respondent and others, seeking partition and declaration, which is also pending before the III Additional District Judge, Salem.

8. In the meantime, the third petitioner purchased the subject property from the second petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 08.04.2022, vide Document No.1533 of 2022, for valid consideration. Thereafter, the third petitioner sold the property, and the accused entered into an a