This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.282 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii), 468, 471, 420 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 2Thereafter, the said Koulanthini and the petitioners entered into registered sale agreement dated 20.01.2003 to purchase the said property.In this regard, one Alexander Joseph, who shown as A7 in the present FIR, lodged a complaint on 19.07.2003, against the petitioners' vendor and others.He also filed a suit in O.S.No.508 of 2003 before the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry against the petitioners and obtained an order of status-quo in respect of disputed property.The petitioners also filed a suit in O.S.No.374 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry, as against the second respondent and his brother, in respect of the very same disputed property and also obtained interim injunction.In fact, the complaint lodged by the petitioners referred under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., to the Executive Magistrate and after conducting enquiry the Executive Magistrate directed the parties to approach civil Court and also ordered to maintain status-quo in respect of the disputed property.Thereafter,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 by the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007, the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.374 of 2007, allowed and granted permanent injunction as against the second respondent.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that on the complaint lodged by one Alexander Joseph the charge sheet laid in C.C.No.43 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, in which the petitioners have been shown as witnesses, since they were bonafied purchaser and no materials were found as against the petitioners to add them as accused.Thereafter, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, the District Registrar passed an order dated 05.10.2015, thereby cancelled the document registered in favour of the petitioners and as against which the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.33680 of 2015 and obtained an interim order of stay and the writ petition is still pending before this Court.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that suppressing the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent filed a direction petition in Crl.Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition in Crl.Thereafter, the said Alexander Joseph filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add the petitioners as accused in C.C.No.43 of 2009, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.In the said application the Investigation Officer, CBCID, Puducherry filed counter and categorically stated that the petitioners are bonafied purchasers, as such no material found as against them to add them as accused.Therefore, by an order dated 03.07.2017, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry dismissed the said application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. As against the same, the said Alexander Joseph filed a revision petition in Crl.After these long years i.e., from 2003, after the period of 14 years, the second respondent lodged a false complaint as against the petitioners and the same has been registered in Crime No.282 of 2017, which is impugned in this petition.Further he submitted that the entire transaction completely civil in nature and even from the FIR, there is no offence made out as against the petitioners, since they are bonafied purchasers, according to the Investigating Officer, CBCID, Puducherry.Therefore, he prayed for quashment of FIR.The second respondent/defacto complainant has two ancestral properties, one is bearing old No.3/New No.5, Faracis Martin Street, Puducherry and another one is bearing Old No.10/New No.12, Faracishttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 Martin Street, Puducherry.One Joseph Raj claimed title over the properties by way of forged partition deed dated 12.11.1914, by which he executed forged sale deed vide document No.3435 of 2002 in favour of one S.Koulanthini, who in turn executed a sale deed vide document No.2165 of 2003 in favour of the petitioners.Therefore the petitioners have purchased the said property knowing fully well aware that their vendor S.Koulanthini does not have title over the property.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent further submitted that the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.374 of 2007 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry as against the second respondent and his bother.In the said suit no notice was served on the second respondent and subsequently an exparte decree granted by the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry and hence it does not bind on the second respondent.The second respondent had preferred a complaint before the District Registrar, Government of Puducherry for holding enquiry under Section 75(4) of Registration Act, 1908 and after conducting enquiry the Registrar passed an order dated 05.10.2015, thereby cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the said S.Koulanthini and also subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners herein, as against which the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court and the same is pending.He further submitted that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii), 468, 471, 420 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC.Further, it is in the FIR stage and though civil suitshttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 are pending, there is no impediment to the second respondent/defacto complainant to initiate the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners.Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.Due to his official occupation, the defacto complainant could not able to visit his properties and using this opportunity, the accused persons created forged notarial sale deed and claimed that one Joseph Raj is the owner of the said property by way of partition deed dated 12.11.1914, through which the said Joseph Raj executed sale deed in favour of one S.Koulanthini, who in turn sold out the property to the petitioners herein.He further submitted that on 21.12.2017, when the second respondent/defacto complainant went to his properties and started cleaning work, the accused persons tried to trespass into his land, abused him with filthy language and assaulted him and also threatened with dire consequences.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Prakash Adiapadam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.The petitioners are arraigned as A5 and A6 in Crime No.282 of 2017, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii), 468, 471, 420 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC, on the file of the first respondent.The crux of the complaint is that the second respondent is the French citizen and he has two ancestral properties and the same were inherited after demise of his father.In his absence, the accused 2,3 and 4 created three forged notarial sale deed in the name of the first accused to grab his property.The said Joseph Raj also executed another forged sale deed in favour of one Koulanthini.In fact the second respondent/defacto complainant is in possession and enjoyment of the said property till date.He further alleged that the some of the accused persons attempted to trespassed into the property as such he lodged the present complaint.In fact, the second respondent made allegations as against seven persons, in which there is no allegation as against the petitioners herein, even on the complaint lodged by him.It is also seen from the complaint lodged by one Alexander Joseph as against thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 petitioners' vendors and others, the petitioners are shown as witnesses.Though the said Alexander Joseph filed a petition to add the petitioners as accused in the said proceedings i.e., C.C.No.43 of 2009, it was dismissed.Admittedly, the first transaction for the disputed property happened on 04.09.2002, by way of registered sale deed in favour of one Koulanthini.When the civil disputes are pending between the parties, the first respondent ought not to have been registered a case as against the petitioners.“…The said monies were paid in cash as per the dicta of the accused person’s son Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam has filed a false and frivolous suit…” (Emphasis supplied)The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under Section 405 of the Penal Code is that the accused was entrusted with some property or has dominion over property.The first respondent has stated that the disputed sum was transferred by the son of the appellants of his ownhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 volition to her.If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details…” The decision does not advance the submission of the first respondent.As we have noted above, the complaint in the present case is bereft of the basic facts necessary to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the Penal Code.The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised with care.In the exercise of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence.Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court.In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent.The suit is pending.The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit.The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code.An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 17 nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence.For the above said reasons and the law applicable to the present case, the impugned FIR in Crime No.282 of 2017 is liable to be quashed as against the petitioners.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the FIR in Crime No.282 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed..04.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rtshttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Station House Officer, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Puducherry.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.CRL.O.P.No.6545 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.3349 of 2018 .04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code