IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders reserved on

15.03.2022

Orders pronounced on

06.05.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

Crl.O.P.No.11477 of 2015

and

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

1.

K.Thulasingamoorthy

2.

T.Pushpa

3.

A.Balamurugan

... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3

Vs.

1.

The State represented by

The Inspector of Police

Central Crime Branch

Team XII

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

... Respondent/Complainant

2.

M.Karunakaran

... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to to call for records in C.C.No.103 of 2008 on the file

of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee (Crime No.516 /

07 on the file of Central Crime Branch, Chennai) and quash the

same.

For Petitioners

:

M/s.R.Srinivas

For Respondent-1

:

Mr.E.Raj Thilak

Additional Public Prosecutor

For Respondent-2

:

Mr.C.Prabakaran

ORDER

This petition is filed to call for records in C.C.No.103 of

2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Poonamallee and quash the same.

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

2.

Final report in C.C.No.103 of 2008 was filed on the

basis of the complaint of the defacto complainant dated

30.07.2007. The defacto complainant is the second respondent in

this case. The case of the second respondent is that he is a

practising Advocate, he purchased two plots in Sivappoothamedu

village, Vanagaram, Chennai in Plot Nos.21 and 22 in S.No.83/2

totally measring 3150 sq.ft from one K.Thulasinga Moorthy on

03.05.2002. The sale consideration was Rs.80,000/-. At the

time of registration, the sale deed was kept pending for

registration due to want of NOC. Second respondent filed Writ

Petition before this Court and got order releasing the sale

deed. On 15.07.2007 at about 3pm, Thulasinga Moorthy, his

brother-in-law A.Balamurugan and one Venkatesan along with 5

others trespassed into his plots with deadly weapons. Second

respondent came to know that Thulasinga Moorthy created forged

documents after his purchase. He created documents in favour of

his wife Tmt.Pushpa and brother-in-law Balamurugan for the same

plot Nos.21 and 22. They, in turn, created power of attorney

deeds in favour of one Venkatesan. Knowing fully well that

after the purchase by the second respondent and he is in

possession from 2002, the accused colluded and committed

criminal breach of trust, created forgery of documents and

cheated him. They criminally trespassed into his plots and made

criminal intimidation with deadly weapons. Therefore, this

complaint.

3.

On the basis of this complaint, first respondent

conducted investigation and filed final report against the

accused for the offences under Sections 465, 466, 467, 469

r/w.471, 420 r/w.120-B and 109 IPC. Challenging taking

cognizance of this case against the petitioners, petitioners

filed this petition for quashing the proceedings.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even

after taking the averments and allegations in C.C.No.103 of 2008

and all the materials and evidence on record, uncontroverted, no

offence is made out against any of the petitioners under any of

the Sections of IPC cited in the final report. There is no

averments or allegations in the charge sheet that petitioners

made any false and fraudulent representation and made the second

respondent part with money, property or act to his detriment and

therefore, no case of cheating under Section 420 IPC is made

out. Execution of sale deed by first petitioner in favour of

second and third petitioners will not and may not tantamount or

make out a case of forgery and creating a false document etc.

No offence under Sections 465, 466, 467, 469 r/w.471, 420

r/w.120-B and 109 IPC is made out and when there is no material

to prove the substantial offence under IPC, they cannot be said

t