K.Sivaraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 07.11.2025 Pronounced on 19.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.10363 of 2024 K.Sivaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul.
(Crime No.400 of 2024) 2.F-Robin Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, Mr.Johnson, S/o.Savari Muthu, Door No.6/600, Chinnupatti, Reddiyapatti Post, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.
... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.400 of 2024 dated 16.09.2024 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.
Page No. 1 of 17
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekanandan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Sathyanathan For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.I.Vel Pradeep
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.400 of 2024, registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 [corresponding to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860].
2. The gist of the allegations in the impugned F.I.R. is that the petitioner had approached the second respondent/defacto complainant in January 2022 and requested him to sell 50 Acres of land in Viralipatti Village for the petitioner's business purposes; that since the persons managing the petitioner's company were known to the second respondent/defacto complainant, he agreed to execute sale deeds in favour of the petitioner; and that the second respondent/defacto complainant executed four sale deeds in the following manner: Page No. 2 of 17
Sl.
No Sale Deed Document No.
Sale Deed Date Extent of Land Sale Consideration Cheque No.
403/2022 01.02.2022 25 Acres 55 cents Rs.12,33,500/- 957206 404/2022 01.02.2022 3 Acres 67 cents Rs.65,00,000/- 957205 1915/2022 04.05.2022 7 Acres 36 cents Rs. 3,51,000/- 033971 2539/2022 10.06.2022 10 Acres 39 cents Rs. 4,20,000/- 033982 Total 46 Acres 97 cents Rs.85,04,500/- that the total sale consideration for 46 Acres and 97 Cents was fixed at Rs.85,04,500/-; that though it is stated in the sale deeds that cheques were issued in favour of the second respondent/defacto complainant, the petitioner had not issued any cheques and had thus committed the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Mr.Vivekanandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is an abuse of process of law; that the F.I.R. has suppressed the fact that the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant had entered into an agreement for erecting a solar power plant for a total value of Rs.125,18,00,000/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five Crores and Eighteen Lakhs only); that the said value includes the value of the land and the cost of erection of the solar power Page No. 3 of 17
plant, and that the power plant was erected on the land in question; that thereafter, the 20 MWs which was agreed to be installed was reduced to 16 MWs and the value was reduced to Rs.102,00,12,160/-; that the second respondent/defacto complainant had received the said payment; that in spite of the receipt of the said payment, the second respondent/defacto complainant has now come up with false allegations two years after the execution of the sale deeds, alleging that the cheques were not handed over by the petitioner; that the petitioner had also lodged a complaint in Crime No.7 of 2024 against the second respondent/defacto complainant with regard to certain disputes; that the second respondent/defacto complainant sought to quash the said F.I.R. in Crl.O.P.No.
16936 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; that the second respondent/defacto complainant had filed a suit in C.O.S.No.1 of 2024 before the Principal District Court, Dindigul, for recovery of Rs.2,19,50,930/-, and in the said suit, there is no reference to non-payment of sale consideration by the petitioner; that the second respondent/defacto complainant had also filed another suit in O.S.No.540 of 2024 before the Principal District Court, Dindigul, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner are not valid for non-payment of sale consideration, which is pending; and that Page No.
the actions of the second respondent/defacto complainant, both in filing the impugned F.I.R. and the subsequent suit, are an afterthought and that in any case, the allegations would not attract the offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant, submitted that the sale deeds have nothing to do with the agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant with regard to the erection of the power plant; that the petitioner has made a false averment before this Court stating that the two transactions are interconnected; that the petitioner had never handed over the cheques to the second respondent/defacto complainant; that since the petitioner had promised to hand over the cheques, the second respondent/defacto complainant did not take any immediate action; that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. would not mean that the allegations do not attract the offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and that the investigation cannot be scuttled at this stage, and therefore, sought for dismissal of this quash petition.
Page No. 5 of 17
5. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to the contract orders wherein the value in the tax invoice was reduced to Rs102,00,12,160/-, and there is no reference to the land therein.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police reiterated the averments made in the F.I.R. and submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and cannot be scuttled; and that it is for the first respondent to ascertain whether the offence of cheating is made out on the facts of the case, and hence opposed the prayer for quashing.
7. As stated earlier, the gist of the allegations is that the petitioner had purchased properties measuring a total extent of 46 Acres and 97 Cents by way of four sale deeds; that though the sale consideration is said to have been paid by cheques, the petitioner did not hand over the cheques. As stated earlier, the sale deeds pertain to the year 2022. It is not known as to why the second respondent/defacto complainant chose not to demand the cheques mentioned in the sale deeds. There is absolutely no communication from the second respondent/defacto complainant calling upon the petitioner to hand over the cheques. Page No. 6 of 17
8. Be that as it may, the respondents admit that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant, and that there was also a purchase order placed by the petitioner for installing a solar power plant on a turnkey basis for 20 MW. It is also not disputed by the second respondent/defacto complainant that the power plant was erected on the lands which were sold by the second respondent/defacto complainant to the petitioner under the four sale deeds mentioned above. In fact, in the F.I.R., the survey numbers of the lands have been mentioned, which are as follows:
1308/2, 1308/3, 1306/3, 1306/3, 1306/4, 1306/5, 1305/3, 1308/1, 1309/3, 1310/1, 1310/2A, 1310/4, 732/1B, 733/2A, 1301/1, 1306/1, 1307/4, 1310/3A, 1310/1B, 1305/1, 1306/2, 732/5, 733/4, 732/4B, 733/3, 733/1, 736/3H & 731/1C
9. In the related proceedings granting approval for the establishment of 2 MW out of 16 MW of the solar power plant, TANGEDCO issued a letter dated 30.09.2022. A scanned copy of the said order reads as follows:
Page No. 7 of 17
Page No. 8 of 17
10. The survey numbers mentioned in the above approval order are the same as those that were sold by the second respondent/defacto complainant to the petitioner. Further, the scanned copy of the purchase order for erection of the power plant dated 29.12.2021 reads as follows: Page No. 9 of 17
Page No. 10 of 17
Page No. 11 of 17
Page No. 12 of 17
11. It is not disputed by the second respondent/defacto complainant that the purchase order includes the land necessary for the erection of the power plant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the contract for erection of the power plant and the sale deeds are connected with each other and cannot be treated as two different transactions.
12. That apart, in the suit filed by the second respondent/defacto complainant in C.O.S.No.1 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, for recovery of Rs.2,19,50,930/- from the petitioner, the second respondent/defacto complainant has not referred to any alleged pending payment towards the sale deeds executed by him in favour of the petitioner. The case only refers to a balance payment of Rs.1,84,46,160/-, which is allegedly due from the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent/defacto complainant filed another suit before the Principal District Court, Dindigul, in O.S.No.540 of 2024, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner are null and void, alleging that the cheques were not handed over. The said suit is pending before the Principal District Court, Dindigul. Page No. 13 of 17
13. It is no doubt true that, though civil proceedings are pending between the parties, criminal prosecution would not be barred. However, in the facts of the present case, as stated earlier, the second respondent/defacto complainant has not chosen to seek the return of the cheques for the past two years. The second respondent/defacto complainant has also not disclosed in the FIR the other inter-connected transactions between them and the petitioner, which involve the lands said to have been sold under the aforesaid sale deeds. In the light of the document, viz., the purchase order dated 29.12.2021, which is not disputed by the second respondent/defacto complainant and clearly shows that the said purchase order for installation of solar power plant included the lands in question, this Court is of the view that the criminal prosecution is an abuse of process of law.
14. Though it has been repeatedly held that the Courts must be slow in interfering with an FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that where the allegations are manifestly attended with mala fides and do not disclose the offences, the Courts are bound to interfere, as there is a growing tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal offences. Page No. 14 of 17
15. In a recent case in Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060, after elaborately considering its earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
"11.5. Thus, the cumulative principles that emerge are: while the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it is the duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial."
16. This is not a case where two illiterate persons have entered into a sale transaction. The transaction is between two companies which are dealing with crores of rupees. Therefore, the allegations that the cheques were not handed over do not suggest deception, especially when there is not even a communication between the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioner, after the execution of the sale deeds, calling upon the petitioner to hand over the cheques. Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned F.I.R. is an Page No. 15 of 17
abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed.
17. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 19.11.2025 JEN Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Copy To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 16 of 17
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
JEN Pre-Delivery Order made in 19.11.2025 Page No. 17 of 17