IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 28.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.11885 of 2018 &

Crl.M.P.No.6275 of 2018

1. B.Chandravarma

2. B.Samrat

3. A.R.Nruptunga

4. B.G.Manjula

... Petitioners

Vs

1. State rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Krishnagiri

(Crime No.10 of 2018)

2. R.Ramakrishnan

... Respondents

PRAYER :

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

to call for the entire records relating to the Crime No.10 of

2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Ezhilarasan

For Respondents: R1 – Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

R2 – Mr.Mr.Arun Prakash

for A.V.Raja

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2018 on the file of

the 1^st respondent Police registered against the petitioners for

the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 471, 468

and 506(i) of IPC.

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

2. The crux of the allegation in the F.I.R. is that the

defacto complainant purchased to an extent of 5.41 cents on

12.10.2007 from the first accused and others. Thereafter, in

the year 2011-12, the accused have created a Power of Attorney

and also sold certain properties and also entered into a

partition deed among themselves. Thereby, the First Information

Report has been registered.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the accused have not fraudulently created any

documents and they have dealt with the property as their own

property. Hence, offence of cheating and forgery is not

attracted. Further, the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2010 has been

filed by the first accused and the suit in O.S.No.60 fo 2018 has

been filed by the defacto complainant. The suit filed by the

defacto complainant has been dismissed for default. The entire

dispute is with regard to the title of the properties.

Therefore, submitted that the injunction already granted in

favour of the defacto complainant has already been vacated in

O.S.No.65 of 2010 by the Order of this Court in CRP.No.191 and

195 of 2020. Hence, submitted that present case is nothing but

abuse of process of law and the same has to be quashed.

4. The Order of this Court also indicate that the defacto

complainant though purchased to an extent of 5.41 cents in the

year 2007, he has sold to an extent of 5.86 cents, more than

what he has purchased. Further, there are title dispute between

the parties and the same has to resolved only before the Civil

Court. Merely because the accused claiming right over the

ancestral property and dealt with the property as their own

property, offences under section 420 and 465 will not be

attracted. The documents have been filed on the side of the

petitioner and the accused are claiming right only on the basis

of the documents of the year 1979 and 1983. Therefore, a person

executing a sale deed claiming that the property as his own

cannot be a ground for the offences under sections 420 and 465

IPC.

5. It is relevant to note that to attract the offence under

section 420 IPC, essential ingredients of the offence of

cheating are as follows :

(i) deception of a person either by making a

false or misleading representation or by dishonest

concealment or by any other act or omission;

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

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that

person to either deliver any property or to consent

to the retention thereof by any person or to

intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or

omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if

he were not so deceived; and

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely

to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,

reputation or property.

Therefore to constitute an