C.Venkatachalam v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.10.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.2233 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 C.Venkatachalam Petitioner/ Accused vs.

1.State by The Inspector of Police K3, Aminjikarai Police Station Chennai 600 029.

(Cr.No.1577/2010) 2.V.Viswanathan Respondents/ Complainant and Defacto Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the case in Cr.No.1577 of 2010 from the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

For petitioner Mr.M.K.Hidayatullah For R1 Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 Mr.A.A.Lawrence

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in Cr.No.1577 of 2010 from the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.

3. On the complaint lodged by one Viswanathan, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.1577 of 2010 on 30.12.2010 u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC against Venkatachalam, challenging which Venkatachalam is before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. On a reading of the complaint given by Viswanathan it is seen that, Viswanathan had entered into a construction agreement with Venkatachalam and had purchased a flat bearing D.No.2 in the building that was promoted by Venkatachalam in the year 2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.64.5 lakhs. Thereafter, Viswanathan wanted to buy another flat for his second daughter and therefore, he approached Vekatachalam and entered into an agreement with him on 24.10.2007 and had paid Rs.35 lakhs as against Rs.39 lakhs. It is further alleged in the complaint given by Viswanathan that the sale deed has been registered on 02.07.2009 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Tirumangalam by Venkatachalam, but he is not handing over the sale deed. Admittedly, there is a civil suit pending between the parties in C.S.No.770 of 2011 before the original side of this Court.

5. On a complete reading of the complaint, the dispute essentially appears to be contractual in nature, inasmuch as the parties are seeking for enforcement of the agreement dated 24.10.2007, for which the police machinery cannot be employed. In the result, the FIR is an abuse of process of law and the same is quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Whatever is stated above is only for the limited purpose of deciding this quash petition and the trial Court shall proceed without being influenced by the observations made herein. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar gms To 1.The Inspector of Police K3, Aminjikarai Police Station Chennai 600 029.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3. The Section Officer Criminal Section, High Court, Madras (Returing records to lower court) 1 cc to Mr.C.Emalias, Advocate, Sr. 59286 2 ccs to Mr.A.A.Lawrence, Advocate, Sr. 59838 Crl.O.P. No.2233 of 2011 MSM (CO) kk 12/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/