Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J
Arunraj – Appellant
Versus
State Rep.By Inspector of Police, Morappur Police Station, Dharmapuri District – Respondent
Crl.M.P.No.15956 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. J. Pradeep
For the Respondents:Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1, Mr.C.Munusamy for R2
A civil dispute cannot be converted into a criminal offence under IPC 420 and related provisions for quashing FIR under S.482 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 420, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, this petition seeks to quash an FIR arising out of allegations that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to execute a sale deed for an ancestral property as security for a promised loan that was never disbursed, then alienated the property and used threats to evict the complainant. The court framed the question whether the allegations disclose any cognizable offence or whether the FIR constitutes an abuse of process that warrants interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It held that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, lacking ingredients of cheating, obscene acts, or criminal intimidation, and observed that civil liabilities cannot be converted into criminal cases especially when settlement pressure is applied through prosecution. Consequently, the FIR in Crime No.179 of 2023 stands quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the sale deed and fir allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. ingredients of section 294(b) ipc not satisfied (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. section 506(i) ipc requires real threat for conviction (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. civil disputes cannot be cloaked as criminal cases (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. high court quashes fir under inherent powers (Para 13) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.179 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant intended to construct a marriage hall in his ancestral property measuring about 1.84 acres and for that purpose, sought financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2 Crores. Through one acquittance, the defacto complainant was introduced to A1/Arulmozhi, who represented himself as a financier and agreed to arrange a loan of Rs.1 Crore on payment of exorbitant interest. It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 insisted that the defacto complainant execute a registered sale deed in respect of the subject property in his favour as a security for the proposed loan transaction. A1 assured the defacto complainant that immediately after transfer of the revenue records in his name, the loan amount would be disbursed. Believing the representations and assurance made by A1, the defacto complainant executed a sale deed on 27.01.2022 in favour of A1. According to the prosecution, after obtaining title over the property, A1 failed to disburse the promised loan amount and on the contrary, started demanding vacant physical possession of the property from the defacto complainant.
4. It is further alleged that though a civil suit seeking cancellation of the said sale deed was pending, A1, with an intention to defeat the rights and interests of the defacto complainant, alienated the property in favour of the third party, viz., Arunraj. The prosecution further alleged that A1, along with his associates, criminally intimidated the defacto complainant by issuing life threats and continuously harassed him with intention to forcibly evict him from the property. Therefore, according to the prosecution, A1 had dishonest and fraudulent intention right from the inception of the transaction and under the guise of arranging a loan, dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to execute the sale deed and thereafter unlawfully dealt with the property for wrongful gain. Based on the complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.179 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i)
of IPC.
5. A perusal of the records and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side reveals that the property was originally belonged by the second respondent, comprised in Survey No.47/3A2, to an extent of 1.84 acres, situated at Kurumpatti Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. According to the second respondent, in order to avail loan, he executed a sale deed in favour of the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused failed to disbursed the promised loan amount of Rs.1 crore. Therefore, the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.43 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur, seeking to set aside the sale deed and the same is pending for adjudication. The first accused executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner/A2 in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the second respondent also filed a suit against the petitioner/A2. Even assuming that the sale deed was execute during the pendency of the suit, the same would only attract the doctrine of lis pendens. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. No prudent person would execute a sale deed without receiving any sale consideration that too an extent of 1.84 acres of land.
6. Insofar as the offences under Section 2
