M R REDDIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R. pending against him in Crime No.26 of 1996, on the file of the respondent police.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the defacto complainant had foisted a false case for alleged offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. against him as also against one Kanniappan. The primary allegation is that the petitioner had executed 8 sale deeds of the properties belonging to the defacto complainant by impersonating him. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was assisted by one Kanniappan in such action. The petitioner states that the defacto complainant and his brother who were joint owners of the property, approached him towards sale thereof and pursuant to the petitioner paying an advance amount of Rs.75,000/- keeping with the agreement of sale entered on 21.06.1991, the defacto complainant and his brother executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused Kanniappan. There under, sale of a portion was effected to the petitioner, his son and daughter, while the remaining portion was sold by the defacto complainant and his brother directly. With a wrongful intent, the defacto complainant had filed a suit in O.S. No. 1104 of 1993 seeking relief of injunction restraining the registration of sale deeds as stated above. The petitioner further informs that the defacto complainant expired on 27.06.2000 and the legal heirs were pursuing the suit filed by him. The complaint preferred by the defacto complainant with the Inspector General of Registration on 24.04.1996, in turn was referred to the respondent police. The defacto complainant filed another complaint before the Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police Station, Chennai, on 05.12.1994. The petitioner informs that both the Inspector of Police, Pallavaram as also the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, conducted an enquiry and concluded that the case is of civil nature. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the above position, the defacto complainant with a malafide intention had lodged a further complaint to the respondent police and owing to the exercise of undue influence on them, the case came to be registered in Crime No. 26 of 1996 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that having had no progress in the investigation of the case filed by the defacto complainant, since 1994, the petitioner has moved this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 770 of 2006, wherein it was directed that the investigation of the case should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 03.04.2006. Despite such order, the respondent police had failed to take any action and thereupon, the wife of the defacto complainant had moved a contempt petition. Such contempt petition was closed, since the present quash petition was pending and as there was an order of stay.