R ROBERT DENSON Vs. STATE; S SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the sole accused to quash the FIR in Cr.No.7/2014 on the file of the first respondent, Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, EDF-III, Vepery, Chennai, registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent defacto complainant.

(2.) The complaint proceeds as if the petitioner/accused, who is the owner of 93 cents at Selaiyur, approached the second respondent defacto complainant to purchase the same and they negotiated and fixed sale consideration of Rs.2,79,00,000/- and the second respondent defacto complainant paid Rs.70,00,000/- as advance on 21.4.2012 and entered into a document styled as deed of sale advance agreement and on 4.9.2012, the petitioner received balance sum of Rs.2,09,00,000/- and executed due receipt and also one general power of attorney in favour of the second respondent and the same was registered as Doc.No.1193/2012 on 4.9.2012 and the second respondent was also entrusted with the original documents and possession of the property in question. Thereafter, the power of attorney entered into an agreement with one Rajkumar on 19.2.2013 and the same was registered as Document No.1744/2013. Whereas the petitioner herein, in order to cheat the second respondent to the tune of Rs.2,79,00,000/- and grab the land in question, cancelled the power of attorney on 1.4.2013 and when he was questioned about the same, he made life threat to the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioner thus committed the acts of cheating and breach of trust. Though the complaint was lodged on 13.5.2013, the same was registered as FIR in Cr.No.7/2014 on 10.1.2014 for the offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC.

(3.) Pending investigation, the sole accused has come forward with the present petition for quashing the FIR mainly on the ground that the case of the complainant is nothing but false and improbable and suffers from inconsistency and that the averments raised in the complaint do not attract the ingredients for the offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC, as there was no entrustment of property and as there was no act of cheating from the inception. It is also his case that the complaint lodged on the basis of the illegal transaction i.e., alleged sale through power of attorney, is not maintainable.