Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 90602
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SETHUMANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP BY – Respondent
CRL OP/6308/2021
Bona fide purchasers who have not meticulously verified the title cannot always be considered as accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF FIR - SALE DEED - [The court quashed the FIR against the petitioners who claimed to be bona fide purchasers of the property, as there was no apparent material to show that they had acted in connivance with the accused to defraud the original owner. The court directed the police to complete the investigation within two months and file the final report.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of purchasing property from a person who impersonated the original owner and created various sale deeds. The petitioners claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value and had no criminal intention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no apparent material to show that the petitioners had acted in connivance with the accused to defraud the original owner. The court also noted that the petitioners had purchased the properties by paying valuable consideration and had obtained encumbrance certificates, albeit for a different survey number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were bona fide purchasers of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners could not be presumed to have had any criminal intention without getting the entire facts behind the transaction. The court also held that the pendency of the civil suit could not be the only reason to quash the criminal proceedings, but that the police should drop the action against the petitioners if they were found to be innocent purchasers during the investigation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR against the petitioners and directed the police to complete the investigation within two months and file the final report.
Crl.O.P No.6308 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P No.6308 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.4183 of 2021
1.S.Sethumani
2.Iyyamani
...
Petitioners/Accused 4 & 6
Vs.
1.State rep.by
Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch,
Tiruppur.
(Crime No.1/2021)
... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Sakthivel
...2nd respondent/ defacto complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and quash the complaint in
FIR No.1/2021 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners
: Mr.N.Umapathi
For Respondent-1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Shanmugaveloyuthem Sr.Advocate
for B.Vasudevan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.6308 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in FIR in Cr.No.1/2021 pending on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The petitioners are ranked as A4 and A6 in the FIR in Cr.No.1/2021
for the offences under Sections34, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.82(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.
3.The case of the prosecution relates to 21 Acres of land situated in
three Survey Numbers 325/1, 327/1C2 & 329 respectively, situated at
Jallipatti Village, Udumalaipettai. The defacto complainant has given a
complaint by alleging that the subject property was originally belonged to one
Ben Bright Singh and he had executed two power of attorney documents in
favour of one Illango and Antony Domenic respectively. The said Antony
Domenic has executed a sale deed in document No.5485/2001 in respect of
an extent of 9.53 Acres in S.No.327/1A, an extent of 3.51 Acres in
S.No.327/1C and 2.92 Acres in S.No.329 has been sold in favour of one
Mohamed Rabi by virtue of a registered sale deed in Document
No.6999/2007; the said Mohamed Rafik has sold the same in favour of the
Natarajan in the year 2017 and thereafter, the second respondent's mother
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.6308 of 2021
Vasuki purchased the said property from Natarajan. An another extent of 3.01
Acres in Survey Number 323, an extent of 4.62 Acres in Survey Number 324
and an extent of 1.93 Acres in Survey Number 325/1 was purchased by one
Vasanthi from Antony Dominic by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing
Document No.5484/2001. An another extent of 6.56 Acres was purchased by
one Bremba Lingam from the Antony Dominic in the capacity as power agent
by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing No.5483/2001.
3.1.The grievance of the complainant is that A1 has impersonated the
original owner Ben Bright Singh and executed a power of attorney in favour
of A3; the other accused colluded with A1 and A3 and created various sale
deeds in respect of the very same property. The petitioners / A4 & A6 had
also purchased of a portion of the property from the third accused. Since the
petitioners/A4 and A6 and other accused claimed counter title over the
subject property by getting sale deeds from the power agent of a fake person,
this complaint is given.
4.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides
and perused the materials available on record.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners/
A4 & A6 have got no criminal intention in purchasing the properties; they are
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.6308 of 2021
bonafide purchasers for values; they believed the title of A1 and the power
possessed by A3; one Vasanthi had purchased the property from Antony
Dominic have also filed a civil suit in respect of the subject property against
A4 in OS.No.212/2019 before the learned Sub Judge, Udumalpet and the
same is pending; A4 has also filed a suit against the said Vasanthi and the
second respond
