R PALANI AND ORS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking to quash the FIR registered Crime No. 2592 of 2010 on the file of the first Respondent police.

(2.) Heard Mr. K. Jeganathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. L. Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first Respondent and also Mr. B. Rajesh Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent/de-facto complainant.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit in his argument that a case has been registered on the complaint given by the second Respondent filed on behalf of his wife, in Crime No. 2592 of 2010, against the Petitioners, who are ranked as A-1 to A-9. He would further submit in his argument that the Petitioners are stated to have committed fraud against the wife of the second Respondent for getting the execution of a power deed, dated 25.02.2010, under the guise of obtaining signatures before the Sub-Registrar, as if it is required for a sale deed, which are not correct. He would further submit in his argument that the second Respondent's wife, namely, Uma, had actually executed a power of attorney on 25.02.2010 in favour of the first Petitioner and the said power deed was registered promptly, and as per the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 (4) of the Registration Act, the production of the said registered document would prove the execution on the face of it and therefore, the said execution cannot be questioned by the executant/second Respondent's wife, by filling a false complaint through her husband. He would further submit in his argument that on the basis of the said power deed, a sale deed has been executed by the first Petitioner in favour of the second Petitioner and the second Petitioner had deposited the said title deed and obtained loan from the eighth Petitioner and all those transactions would go to show that the power deed was validly executed by the second Respondent's wife, namely, Uma in favour of the first Petitioner and it was acted upon. He would further submit in his argument that the wife of the second Respondent did not come forward to cancel the power deed, and it can be presumed under Section 114 of Evidence Act that the registered power deed is a correct document and only upon setting aside the said power deed, the offence can be taken cognizance against the Petitioners. He would also submit in his argument that a suit has been filed by the Petitioner in O.S. No. 224 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Theni, and it is pending and when the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the dispute, the complaint cannot be entertained by the Respondent police. Therefore, he would request the Court to quash the FIR as not sustainable and to pass further orders.