A dispute arising from a failure to vacate premises after the sale of a property, where the purchaser had knowledge of prior occupancy, is primarily civil in nature and does not constitute criminal offences like cheating or trespass sufficient to sustain an FIR.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.111 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and his friend had purchased the subject property situated at T.Nagar, Chennai, under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2014 for a sale consideration of Rs.2.50 crores. At the time of purchase, the petitioners, who were occupying the premises, agreed to vacate the property within four to six months without raising any objection to the sale, While the other tenants subsequently vacated the premises or extended their lease by paying additional amounts, the petitioners failed to vacate the premises as promised. According to the prosecution, the petitioners had dishonestly induced the defacto complaint to purchase the property by assuring that they would vacate the premises and thereafter cheated him by unlawfully continuing in possession of the property. Hence the complaint. 3. Based on the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.111 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 447 of IPC.

4. Even according to the second respondent, he, along with his friend, purchased the subject property from one Gnanamani, who is the power of attorney of Saravana Prakash. Originally, the petitioners owned the subject property and had sold to the same in favour of Saravana Prakash. Therefore, the second respondent and his vendors had absolute knowledge that the accused were in possession of the subject property. Though the accused had undertaken to vacate the premises after the purchase the said premises, they failed to vacate the same. In such circumstances, the second respondent and his vendor ought to have approached the civil forum for appropriate relief and not initiated criminal proceedings by lodging the FIR.

5. Therefore, no offence is made out against the accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 447 of IPC. Even at the time of purchase of the property, the accused were in possession of the subject property as tenants. Therefore, no offence is made out under Section 447 of IPC. In fact, the vendors of the second respondent had purchased the subject property and thereafter, permitted the accused to continue in occupation of the premises. Therefore, the FIR is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

6. In view of the above, the FIR registered in Crime No.111 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.