M.SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.230 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate - I, Poonamallee, thereby taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 r/w 120 B of IPC.

(2.) The learned senior counsel Mr.Om Prakash, appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are totally 5 accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as 5th accused. The charges as against the petitioner are that the de-facto complainant and their members are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the disputed property. The said property was originally purchased by the forefathers of the first and second accused and they have no right or title over the said property. They falsely fabricated a partition deed dated 16.06.2008 in respect of the disputed property and they executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the third and fourth accused to deal with the said property. The first to fourth accused had agreed to sell the said property to the petitioner for the sum of Rs.3.25 crores for which the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.40 lakhs as an advance and entered into the sale agreement dated 14.07.2008. It is further alleged that only to grab the entire land the accused persons have created encumbrance over the property and on 21.10.2009 of the accused persons have threatened the de-facto complainant with their consequences.

(3.) Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent/plaintiff submitted that the petitioner had full knowledge about the fabrication of partition deed by A1 and A2, only to create encumbrance over the property, connived with other accused persons created encumbrance over the property by way of entering into the sale agreement. After fabrication of partition deed without any right over the property, they executed power of attorney in favour of A3 and A4. In turn they entered into the sale agreement with the petitioner and created encumbrance over the property. He further submitted that the petitioner is none other than the very close family friend of the first and second accused and as such the petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser and there are materials to connect the petitioner for the charges.