S RAJAGOPAL S/O E P SANJEEVI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, ANTI-LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpet, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2427 of 2015 on 02.05.2016.

(2.) Petitioner is the de facto complainant. It is the petitioner's case that second respondent had approached him, introduced himself as a broker dealing with purchase and sale of properties and informed that some properties were available for sale. Petitioner conveyed his intent to purchase property measuring an extent of 4000 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No.135/1 (Part) New Survey No.347/13, patta bearing No.620 of No.41, Pudhupaakam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District and an unregistered agreement for sale dated 25.06.2002 has been entered into. Second respondent has agreed to sell the aforesaid property along with two other properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/-. Upon receiving entire sale consideration, second respondent handed over possession of original title deeds and other documents pertaining to the properties and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner in 2003. The accusation is that second respondent, without informing petitioner, has revoked the Power of Attorney in 2007 and executed another Power of Attorney in favour of third respondent registered as Document No.2807 of 2013 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Thiruporur, on 04.03.2013. Third respondent executed a sale deed dated 07.03.2013 registered as document No.2961 of 2013 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Thiruporur, in favour of fourth respondent, who in turn sold the same to fifth respondent for Rs.60,86,400/- on 10.10.2013 vide Document No.14084 of 2013 on the file of Sub Registrar, Thiruporur. On coming to know about the wrong doings of respondents 2 to 5, petitioner preferred a complaint before respondent police but no action was taken. Upon petitioner moving this Court in Crl.O.P.No.26417 of 2014 and obtaining directions therein, a case was registered in Crime No.67 of 2014 on the file of first respondent for offences u/s.120(b), 420 and 406 IPC. On completion of investigation, first respondent has informed that respondents 2 to 5 had no intention to deceive petitioner through impersonation and fabrication of documents. Petitioner has produced only the unregistered Power of Attorney and no registered documents or revenue records have been produced to substantiate his contention. In the alleged Power of Attorney executed by second respondent, there is no mention of the subject property. While petitioner/complainant has not produced any proof to substantiate the contention that he has given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.772047 drawn on State Bank of India, Adyar Branch, second respondent, has stated that he has received a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- from the petitioner/complainant. Given such position, it was clear that there was real estate business dealings between complainant and second respondent and money transactions in connection therewith. In the unregistered sale deed, no value was fixed for the property in Survey No.135/1, new Survey No.347/13. Though complainant pleaded that all documents pertaining to the subject property are with him, it was found that such documents are with fifth respondent. It was also found that second respondent having received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from petitioner/complainant towards sale consideration in respect of properties in (i) S.No.135/1, New S.No.347/13, (ii) S.No.108/15 and (iii) S.No.80/10A, has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner/complainant only in respect of properties bearing S.Nos.108/15 and 80/10A and executed a sale deed in respect of other property viz., S.No.135/1, New No.347/13, in favour of others. As there was real estate business dealings between petitioner/complainant and second respondent and money transactions in connection there with and petitioner/complainant claims right over property after completion of ten years of agreement, a decision thereupon could be taken only by civil Courts. Finding as above, first respondent filed a final report informing the case to be 'civil in nature'. Petitioner has preferred a protest petition in C.M.P.No.2427 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu, which came to be dismissed under the impugned order. There against, petitioner has preferred the present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that having received the entire sale consideration from petitioner, second respondent failed to execute a sale deed in his favour and he has also revoked the Power of Attorney executed in favour of petitioner without his knowledge. Second respondent has duly acknowledged the receipt of Rs.6,50,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that respondents 2 to 5 have conspired and cheated petitioner. First respondent, without examining petitioner and other witnesses, has filed a final report informing the case to be 'civil in nature'. Learned counsel submitted that Court below has failed to consider that only after registration of case, second respondent obtained anticipatory bail. He failed to comply with the conditions imposed therein and filed a modification petition before this Court. Though first respondent agreed that there was a sale agreement between petitioner and second respondent and that the second respondent has received the entire sale consideration, it erroneously has filed the final report informing the case to be 'civil in nature' without examining petitioner and other witnesses. Submitting that Court below, without properly appreciating the materials on records, has dismissed the protest petition moved by petitioner, learned counsel prayed that this revision be allowed.