J SAMUEL Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.464 of 2004 on the file of the 1st respondent in so far as he is concerned.

(2.) The complaint reads as follows:

(3.) A bare reading of the complaint would reflect the position that the 2nd respondent/complainant himself was aware that the sale deed in favour of his vendor Mathiasa Pandian had not been duly registered i.e., the sale in favour of Mathiasa Pandian was in inchoate state. Knowing such position, he had paid consideration to Mathiasa Pandian and had the sale deed registered in his favour.