IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 10.01.2022

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

Crl. O.P. No.27951 of 2018

and Crl.M.P.Nos.16221 of 2018

and 10928 of 2019

Manickam

...Petitioner

Versus

1.State Rep.by

The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch(DCB),

Kanchipuram

(Crime No.40 of 2010)

2.Varadhan

...Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.225

of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II,

Kanchipuram and quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s.K.M.Balaaji

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar for R1

Government Advocate(Crl.side)

Mr.K.S.Senthil Kumar for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for

the records in C.C.No.225 of 2015 pending on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate-11, Kanchipuram and quash the same.

2. The crux of the charge in the final report is that Al is

the absolute owner of the immovable property to the extent of

4.79 acres in Survey Nos, 61, 156/4, 157/2, 155/1A and

originally, she has appointed an agent one Jeyachandran/A2 by a

registered

Power

of

Attorney

dated

17.05.1998.

In pursuant to the above power of attorney, A2 has obtained DTCP

and developed the land. Thereafter, on 10.12.2001, Power of

Attorney executed in favour of A2 was cancelled by Al with the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

consent of A3/petitioner, for which, certain amount has been

agreed to be paid by Al to A2. On the same day, the Power of

Attorney was executed in favour of A3 by A1, whereas, A2 has

sold the property to the defacto complainant in the year 2008.

Thereby, all of the accused committed offences under Sections

465 468, 471, 420 r/ w 34 of 1PC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

the defacto complainant has purchased the property in respect

of Survey Nos. 155/1A, 54A, 156/4 from A2, which is much after

the cancellation of Power of Attorney. Whereas, the subsequent

Power of Attorney was executed by A1 in favour of A3 for the

entire immovable properties. Merely because the entire power has

been given, A3/petitioner cannot be prosecuted. Moreover, there

is no other materials available on record in the final report

and the statements would not attract any offence under Sections

465,468, 471, 420 of 1.P.C r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, he prayed to

quash the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would

contend that A3 is also a witness and the cancellation of Power

of Attorney was executed on 10.12.2001. On the same day, A3 has

given Power of Attorney in respect of Schedule 'A' property,

whereas the property was sold by A2 in the year 2008. Schedule

'A' of the property reads as follows:

“All that piece and parcel of lands No.58 situated at

Sevilimedu village, Kanchipuram Taluk, Chengalpet

District, comprised in Survey Nos.61, 156/4, 157/2,

155/1A measuring 3.54 acres, 96 cents, 8 cents, 21

cents respectively totallly measuring 4.79 acres

situate within the Registration Sub-District of

Kancheepuram,

and

Registration

District

of

Chengalpet.”

He further contended that the materials collected by the

prosecution clearly shows that all the accused were in hand in

glove. Hence, he opposed to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the

final report has already been filed.

6. At the outset, it is well settled that when the materials

unearthed by the prosecution agency shows that there are prima

facie materials to proceed against accused, this Court cannot

exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to interfere with

the final report and at the same time when the entire materials

unearthed by the prosecution taken in the face value do not

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

constitute any offence and still forcing the party to face the

ordeal of the trial is nothing but a