← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/20405/2018allowed

S.Vanniya Raj @ S.V.Raja, v. The State Rep By Its,

2021-10-28Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.10.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10963 & 10964 of 2018 S.Vanniya Raj @ S.V.Raja ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State by Inspector of Polic, H8, Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai.

2.D.Lakshmanan ... Respondents PRAYER:

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.898 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, H-8, Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel For M/S.T.Sudhan Raj For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap-R1 Public Prosecutor Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan-R2

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.898 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, H-8, Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai, which was filed against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the power agent of one Pattammal and others in respect of certain plots in Nos.149,150,151,152,154,172 comprised in S.No.308,309,310/1,31082 situated in Sathangadu Village. The

petitioner, as a power agent, entered into an agreement of sale dated 07.02.2009 with the defacto complainant for the sale of the above said plots fixing the total sale consideration of Rs.25 Lakhs and received an advance amount of Rs.7 Lakhs periodically from 30.07.2010 to 27.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has refused to register the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent police on 25.02.2018 against the petitioner. Based on this complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, an FIR came to be registered for an offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. Challenging the said FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition with the afore said prayer.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the alleged agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 07.02.2009 and last payment was made on 27.12.2010 to the tune of Rs.11 Lakhs including the advance amount. However, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent police only on 31.07.2018 and on perusal of the complaint, he has not disclosed any crime against the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that on the earlier occasion, the petitioner filed a complaint before the respondent police, for which, the petitioner fled an anticipatory bail petition before this Court in Crl.OP.No.4965 of 2018.

This Court directed the respondent police to conduct enquiry and after such enquiry take appropriate action either to file FIR or close the complaint and report it to the Court. The petitioner complied with the orders of this Court and appeared before the respondent police on 10.03.2018 and submitted all the necessary copies of documents and cooperated for the enquiry. The defacto complainant has also participated in the proceedings. During the hearing dated 16.03.2018, this Court, was pleaded to close the Crl.OP.No.4965 of 2018 based on the submission of the learned Government Advocate. Suppressing all these facts, the defacto complainant filed another Crl.OP.No.8224/2018 on 14.03.2018 and obtained an ex-parte order from this Court to register the FIR against the petitioner.

Based on the said order, the present FIR has been filed against the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on instructions, the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant paid the entire amount only to the land owners and not to the petitioner, he is only a power agent. Hence, the learned Senior counsel prays that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any office and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and seeks to quash the FIR which was filed against the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the second respondent, on instructions, submitted that the second respondent/defacto complainant is agreed to receive the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) from the petitioner. 5.Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6.In the considered view of this Court, the entire transaction that has taken place between the parties is purely civil in nature. Admittedly, there was an agreement of sale executed in favour of the second respondent as early as in the year 2009 itself and he did not take any steps to proceed further to file a suit for specific performance based on the said agreement. Similarly, the second respondent has also not taken any steps to file any suit for recovery of money for the amount that was paid by him as advance at that time of entering into an agreement of sale. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court certain payments were made by the second respondent only to the Principals. If the second respondent has to seek his remedy only from the principals and not the petitioner herein.

This Court does not want to take this fact into consideration for the purposes of the present case and this Court is purely going by the averments that have been made in the complaint. 7.The entire dispute is civil in nature and an attempt has been made to give it a criminal colour. The allegations made in the FIR also did not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. Therefore, continuation of the investigation based on the FIR registered by the first respondent will only amount to an abuse of process of law and the same requires the interference of this Court. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bajan Lal and others reported in 992 (1) SCC 335.

8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission made by either side, this Court allows the original petition by quashing the FIR in crime No.898/2018 against the petitioners on the undertaking of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the second respondent by way of demand draft

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rli To 1.

The Inspector of Police, H8, Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai.

2.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

+1cc to Mr.T.Sudharaj, Advocate, S.R.No.55715 +1cc to Mr.V.Jeeva Giridharan, Advocate, S.R.No.56049 Crl.O.P.No.20405 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10963 & 10964 of 2018 PA(CO) AJ(07/06/2022)