VEMULA RAMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in CC No.230 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner is the 6th accused and on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.65 of 2009 was registered for the offences under Sec. 417, 418, 465, 468, 471, 166 IPC r/w 120(B) IPC. After completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed making the following allegations. The disputed property originally belonged to one Kosimin Jeevanantham and Kosimin. They executed a power of attorney in favour of one Muniasamy, who is the husband of the de-facto complainant. In pursuance of the above said power of attorney deed, the de-facto complainant purchased the properties. The above said Kosimin Jeevanantham received the entire sale consideration. The de-facto complainant was put in possession of the properties. In order to cheat the de-facto complainant, the siad Kosimin Jeevanantham executed another sale deed in respect of 34 cents to the third accused and later, the third accused sold the properties to the 8th accused and 9th accused. The accused 4 to 6 were found to have been deleted from the final report.

(3.) Seekingquashment of the criminal proceedings, this petition has been filed mainly on the ground that Muniasamy, who is the husband of the de-facto complainant executed a sale agreement in favour of one Muthuramalingam and for the above said sale, the de-facto complainant has also received some amount and three months time was mentioned in the sale agreement. The above said Muthuramalingam did not comply the sale transaction within the time agreed. He executed another sale agreement in favour of one Ramuthai for 81 cents. The owner Jeevanatham executed a power of attorney deed in favour of Dhanasekar in respect of 34 cents. He also executed a sale deed in respect of 24 cents in favour of Nurul Hameed. The genuineness of the sale agreement, it can be decided only in the civil suit. Since the petitioner purchased the properties from one Dhanasekar under a registered sale deed, after verifying the document, it must be constructed as a bona fide purchase for valuable consideration. The petitioner is the resident of Andhra Pradesh.