,IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No.19939 & 19940 of 2022

1. K.Subramanian

2. S.Srithar 3. S.Manoj

4. S.Bakkiyam ..Petitioners Vs

1. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Tirupur City.

Crime No.26/2018.

2. A.M.S.Ramaswamy ..Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.28 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate -2, Tiruppur.

For Petitioners: Mr.J.Antony Jesus For Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R1 Mr.N.K. Ponraj For R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who are the owners of the subject property comprised in S.F.No.65/1A2 measuring an extent of 2.12 acres situated at Andipalayam Village, Tirupur District, had agreed to sell the same to the second respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,40,400/-. According to the prosecution, after receiving the said amount, the petitioners executed a General Power of attorney in favour of the son of the defacto complainant with respect to a portion of the property. Subsequently, a sale deed was executed in favour of the defacto complainant based on the said Power of attorney. However, it later came to the light that the petitioners had cancelled the said Power of Attorney by executing a Deed of Revocation.

Hence, alleging, cheating and fraud, the complaint came to be lodged.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.26 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 418, 424 and 34 of IPC.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the dispute pertains purely to a sale transaction and that the second respondent has already filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.298 of 2021 on the file of the District Court, Tiruppur, which is pending adjudication. Therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. A perusal of the complaint reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 418, 424 and 34 of IPC. The contention raised by the petitioners cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that, despite having been received the entire sale consideration as agreed, they failed to execute the sale deed. That apart, the first accused had settled the property in favour of the fourth accused. It shows that the intention of the accused was only to cheat the second respondent and nothing else.

7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C./180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(any one)

8. Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the f