Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J
Arulnayagam – Appellant
Versus
Inspector Of Police – Respondent
CRL OP No. 10945 of 2023 | Crl.M.P.No. 6894 of 2023 | C.C.NO.3740/2017
For Petitioner(s): M/s.V.Karnan, K.Thenrajan, S.Krishnamoorthy, K.Rahul
For Respondent(s):Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate
Civil disputes over property sale proceeds cannot be criminally prosecuted without ingredients of offence; quashed due to delay and civil nature.
Headnote:The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 120B, 406 r/w 467, 468, 420, 471 r/w 465 IPC concerning a property purchased in 1988, where the defacto complainant granted power of attorney to the petitioner for dealing with the property, which was later sold in 2003 without sharing proceeds, leading to a complaint in 2008. The court found the property was jointly purchased, sold based on the power of attorney, with no ingredients of criminal offences as the dispute was civil in nature, lacking explanation for delay in FIR, and prior quashing in connected case. The key issue was whether the sale without knowledge and non-sharing of proceeds attracted criminal conspiracy and cheating under IPC. The ratio decidendi holds that mere civil disputes over sale proceeds cannot be given criminal colour, especially with delay and absence of criminal intent; remedy lies in civil suit for recovery. The proceedings in C.C.No.3740 of 2017 were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case on property sale and alleged non-sharing of proceeds. (Para 2) |
| 2. no criminal ingredients; civil dispute miscoloured as criminal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. proceedings quashed due to civil nature and prior order. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.NO.3740 of
2017 on the file of CCB Court at Egmore.
2. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 1988 the deceased/defacto complainant had purchased the property in Survey No.297/2 at Velachery to an extent of 39.5 cents and the same was registered in Document No.985/1988. After the purchase of the said property the defacto complainant had appointed the petitioner as a Power of Attorney in order to deal with the property and the same was registered in the Document No.953 of 1988 at SRO T.Nagar, Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner divided the said property into 10 residential plots and also had given the said property as collateral security for his brother’s Hospital. After redemption of the said property the property was sold out in favour of one Rajam Muthukumarasamy and the same was registered in Document No.2837 of 2003 dated 01.07.2003. After the purchase of the property the said Rajam Muthukumarasamy had sold the subject property to various parties. It is alleged that the petitioner has not given the share of the sale proceeds to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint was lodged in Cr.No.375 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 120 (b), 406 r/w 467,468,420,471 r/w 465 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation the same has been taken cognizance. To quash the said proceedings, the present petition has been filed.
3. On perusal of records and the submissions made by either side it is seen that the property was purchased in the year 1988 jointly by the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has given power of attorney and based on the said power of attorney the petitioner has sold out the plots to the 3rd parties. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the property was sold without the knowledge of the defacto complainant. The property was sold out in the year 2008 and the complaint was lodged in the year 2008. Now the second respondent/defacto complainant is no more. The complaint is lodged only on the ground that the petitioner had not given sale consideration to him. However, the entire property was sold in the year 2003 itself and the complaint was lodged only in the year 2008. Furthermore, there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R . Further in the connected case in Crl.O.P.No.18387 of 2022 this Court has quashed the C.C.NO.3740 of 2017 on the file of CCB Court at Egmore vide order dated 10.08.2022.
4.If at all all the sale proceeds was not given to the defacto complainant he ought to have filed suit for recovery of the sale proceeds. Therefore, there is no absolutely no ingredients to attract the offence under sections 120 (b), 406 r/w 467,468,420,471 r/w 465 of I.P.C.. Hence this Court is of the view that the defacto complainant has given Criminal colour to the civil dispute.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.NO.3740 of 2017 on the file of CCB Court at Egmore, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
