Civil law remedies cannot be bypassed by converting civil disputes into criminal prosecutions. Courts must exercise caution to prevent the abuse of criminal proceedings to exert pressure in matters essentially involving private property rights and contractual obligations that lack the essential ingredients of criminal offenses.

ORDER :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in 618 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, the first respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.01 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C read with Section 34 of I.P.C alleging that on 07.08.2008 all the accused with common intention indulged in grabbing the property of the second respondent and prepared a false Power of Attorney as if it was executed by the complainant in favour of the second accused. Thereafter, on the strength of the said Power of Attorney,the second accused executed the sale deed in favour of the first accused with the help of the 3^rd and 4^th accused. The 3^rd accused is the Sub- Register, Pondicherry and the 4^th accused is a document writer. It is alleged that the defacto complainant owned the subject property and it was sold for a very meagre amount of Rs.7,20,000/- for which also the sale consideration was not paid to the defacto complainant. Further alleged that A1/petitioner being a Civil Contractor, he was entrusted with the renovation work of the subject property and the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- by way of cash and also 61 sovereigns of gold to the first and second accused for the renovation of the subject property through the State Bank of India, United Commercial Bank Puducherry. Even as per the forged Power of Attorney, the sale consideration should have been paid to the account of the defacto complainant. However, no amount was paid to the defacto complainant by the first and the second accused. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in CC.No.618/2020 on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. To quash the same, the petitioner has filed this present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no charges are made out as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 406, 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The first accused is the bonafide purchaser of the subject property owned by the complainant and he had bought the property for a valid sale consideration. The entire sale consideration was duly paid to the second accused who is the power of attorney of the complainant. The first power of attorney was executed by the complainant while he was in France. However, in the schedule of property the Survey Number was wrongly mentioned as 260/1 instead of 261/1. Therefore, in order to correct the mistake, once again the complainant executed another Power of Attorney dated 30.06.2008 by correcting the Survey Number with a pen by hand which was not accepted by the adjudicating authority and as such once again it was returned to the complainant. Hence, once again on 30.07.2008 a fresh power of attorney was executed by the defacto complainant in favour of the second accused thereby directing the second accused to execute the sale deed in favour of the first accused without any corrections. It was also duly adjudicated in India and accordingly the second accused executed the sale deed in favour of the first accused on 07.08.2008. The entire sale consideration was duly paid to the second accused through Bank transaction. After a period of 4 years from the date of sale deed, the defacto complainan