C.RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in crime No.186 of 2022 registered by the first respondent/police for offences under Ss. 406, 418, 420, 294(b), 506(1) of IPC, as against the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the agricultural lands comprised in various survey numbers to an extent of 1.98 acres originally belonged to one, Balakrishna Naicker vide patta No.648. He died on 25/5/1994 leaving behind his legal heirs including the second respondent herein. The land comprised in various survey numbers to an extent of 49 cents originally belonged to one, Natesan Naicker, Balakrishna Naicker, Parthasarathy Naicker, Sundaresan Naicker, Ranganathan, Rama Naicker and Elumalai Naicker vide patta No.1337. All of them have got 1/7 share each and on the death of the said Balakrishna Naicker, his legal heirs have inherited 7/28 shares in the said property. Both the properties are the subject matter of dispute in this case. While being so, all the legal heirs of the said Balakrishna Naicker executed a deed of general power of attorney dtd. 25/7/2016 registered vide document No.7728 of 2016 and appointed the first accused to deal with the property. Other co-owners of the immovable property also executed three deeds of General Power of Attorney in favour of the first accused. On the strength of the same, the first accused executed two sale deeds in favour of M/s.Krishna Estate represented by its partner i.e. second accused. At the time of execution of power of attorney, the legal heirs were paid Rs.15,00,000.00 and cheque for a sum of Rs.35,00,000.00 as security till the formation of layout. They were also instructed not to present the cheque till the development of the said property. Therefore, the defacto complainant and others waited for months and there is no positive response. Thereafter, they came to understand that the first accused executed sale deed and received huge sale consideration to the tune of Rs.10,24,00,000.00 in respect of the subject property. When it was questioned by the defacto complainant, they were threatened with dire consequences by goondas and henchmen.

(3.) Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire sale consideration was duly paid to the second respondent. However, the second respondent and other legal heirs caused notice to the accused persons alleging that the deed of power of attorney was executed only for the development of the subject property into layout and as such sale deed executed in favour of A2 is not valid and thereby called upon the first accused to cancel the sale deed. On receipt of the same, the petitioner had sent reply notice dtd. 3/7/2019. While being so, the second respondent also lodged complaint on 17/6/2019 and for non registering the same, the second respondent approached this Court in Crl.OP.No.26522 of 2019 for registration of FIR. It was disposed of directing the second respondent to work out his remedy in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the first respondent conducted detailed enquiry and directed both the persons to approach competent civil court to redress their grievance and closed the complaint by the closure report on 30/12/2019. While being so, the second respondent suppressed the above facts and filed complaint for seeking direction under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Chengalpet in CMP.No.1189 of 2021. In pursuant to the said direction, the first respondent registered the present impugned FIR.