2026:MHC:351 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.12.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23431 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.20334 of 2025

1.Kalai Selvi

2.Palanichamy @ Palani

3.V.Chinnathambi

4.Selvaraj ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.425 of 2025)

2.Raman ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.425 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Manikandan For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

*****

O R D E R

Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR in Crime No.425 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed. The petitioners are A3, A6, A7 & A8 in the said Crime No.425 of 2025.

2. Mr.P.Manikandan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the second respondent/defacto complainant had lodged a complaint against the husband of the first accused alleging receipt of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of a promissory note and Rs.1,00,000/- as advance amount under an unregistered sale agreement dated 19.07.2018; that the husband of the first accused had handed over the original title deed relating to his vacant land in T.S.No.820/8 measuring an extent of 934½ sq.ft.; that while so, the husband of the first accused passed away on 05.02.2019; that thereafter, the first accused, though a signatory to the sale agreement, had deliberately caused a paper publication stating that the original title deed of the said property was lost and had also obtained a non-availability certificate from the jurisdictional police; that on the strength of the same, she executed a power of attorney dated 16.04.2021 in favour of the second accused, who in turn executed a sale deed dated 26.04.2021 in favour of the first petitioner/A3, in which the second petitioner/A6 signed as a witness; that the third and fourth petitioners/A7 and A8 are the father and brother of the first petitioner/A3; and that the first petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, the second petitioner is a witness to the sale deed and the third and fourth petitioners are relatives of the first petitioner; that however, the first respondent police implicated them as accused, and hence sought the indulgence of this Court to quash the FIR insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

3. Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent, submitted that there was a sale agreement between the deceased husband of the first accused and the second respondent/defacto complainant for the purpose of borrowing a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and for receipt of an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards sale consideration, pursuant to which the original title deed was handed over to the second respondent/defacto complainant by the deceased husband of the first accused; that suppressing the said fact, the first accused, in collusion with the second accused, executed a power of attorney in favour of the second accused, who in turn sold the property to the first petitioner; that the execution of the sale agreement between the deceased and the second respondent/defacto complainant was well within the knowledge of the petitioners, particularly the purchaser, namely, the first petitioner/A3; that all the petitioners conspired together with the first and second accused for the purpose of purchasing the property and that they were hand in glove with each other and jointly cheated the second respondent/defacto complainant; and that apart from the same, the third and fourth petitioners/A7 and A8, at the instigation of the first petitioner/A3, had damaged the wire fence erected by the second respondent/defacto com