The complaint proceeds that A1 to A14 have executed three power of attorneys in favour of the second respondent defacto complainant vide document nos.178/1998, 297/2007 and 1787/2008 and on the strength of the same, the power of attorney mortgaged the property for Rs.1 lakh.In pursuance of the same, the power of attorney entered into an agreement for purchase of the property and put up compound wall and grill gate and obtained service connection and conducted three cases before the Court at Chengalpet and thereafter, executed a sale deed in favour of one Shanthi on 13.7.2011 vide document no.7424/2011 and the defacto complainant has been insisting A1 to A14 to receive the balance sale consideration, but the accused have been postponing the same.While so, the defacto complainant on behalf of Shanthi applied for patta and they come to know that the property was already sold to one Jinnah, who is the petitioner herein.The complaint further proceeds that the sale deed in favour of Jinnah is not valid and the same is executed by his principals without the knowledge of the power of attorney, after obtaining part of the sale consideration and thereafter creating encumbrance to cheat the purchaser who is the power of attorney holder and without handing over the original documents, which are in the custody of the power of attorney holder.Thus, the principals of the defacto complainant i.e., A1 to A14, in order to cheat their power of attorney, have created illegal sale deed and committed an act of land grabbing.The complaint was lodged on 31.3.2011 and was registered as FIR in Cr.No.100/2013 on 24.12.2013 against the principals and the petitioner herein.3.The petitioner/A15 has come forward with the present petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations raised in the FIR failed to make out any offence in law, much less offence of cheating and none of the ingredients of the offences as referred to above is made out and the complaint came to be lodged only to wreck vengeance against the petitioner herein and to counter blast the complaint and the civil suit filed by the petitioner herein and that, the dispute raised herein is more of civil in nature and there is no element of crime involved in it and the criminal jurisdiction invoked is an abuse of process of law.It is further stated herein that A1 to A14, being the owners of the property, executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner as well as in favour of the second respondent's wife and the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was earlier in point of time and the sale deed in favour of his wife executed by the second respondent by using the power of attorney, which is said to have been executed by A1 to A14, was much after the sale of the property to the petitioner with the knowledge of the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner and it is only the complainant along with the second respondent's wife trying to dispossess the petitioner of the property by using the power of attorney and the sale deed and the complaint filed by the second respondent is hence tainted with malafide and with ulterior motive and the same is registered as FIR without any enquiry.It is also his case that the allegations raised in the FIR disclose cognizable offences and make out a prima facie case.According to the second respondent, the property was offered for sale by the owners and he agreed to purchase the same for more than Rs.20 lakhs as sale price and obtained registered deed of power of attorney in his favour, authorising him to deal with the property and thereafter he constructed compound wall in and around the property and put up grill date and obtained electricity connection and defended three civil suits filed against the principals and thereafter sold and executed registered sale deed in favour of his wife Shanthi.Only on making application for patta, he came to know about execution of sham and nominal sale deed in favour of the petitioner by the principals without any right to do so and A1 to A15 have thus defrauded the second respondent and A1 to A14 committed criminal breach of trust by falsification of records along with A15 and pendency of the civil suit cannot absolve them from the criminal prosecution and FIR was registered only after holding detailed enquiry.It is further submitted that the petitioner committed fraud on his vendors by creating two forged documents i.e. one for Rs.1,20,00,000/- and another for Rs.25,07,000/- and the same requires thorough probe.5.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.6.It is not in dispute that the property belongs to one Raghavan and A1 to A14 are his sons and grand sons through the deceased son and A1 to A14 have executed registered power of attorneys in favour of the second respondent defacto complainant and during the currency of the same, A1 to A14/owners of the property executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner vide Document No.3529 of 2011 dated 31.3.2011 without reference to the power of attorney and after execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the power of attorney holder executed a sale deed in favour of his wife on 13.7.2011 on the strength of such power of attorney.The second respondent has come forward with the present complaint stating that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein, after agreeing to sell the property to the second respondent and after obtaining Rs.20 lakhs as part of the sale consideration and after allowing the defacto complainant to mortgage the property and to execute a sale deed and to defend three civil suits and without obtaining the original title deeds from the power of attorney holder and without verifying the encumbrance on the property, is dishonest and fraudulent act and is outcome of the collusion between A1 to A14/owners on one hand and A15/purchaser on other hand to create encumbrance on the property in order to harass the power of attorney and his purchaser.Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he also lodged a complaint against the second respondent and others in this regard.The petitioner has also filed the civil suit in OS No.349/2013 against the purchaser Shanthi, defacto complainant and A1 to A14 for various reliefs, i.e., to declare the power of attorneys dated 15.4.1998, 24.1.2007 and 13.9.2008 in favour of the second respondent herein vide Doc.Nos.179 of 1998, 292/2007 and 1787/2008 on the file of SRO, Guduvancheri as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; to declare the sale deeds dated 13.7.2011 executed by the second respondent herein in capacity of power agent of the Principals in favour of his wife, which was registered as Doc.No.7424 of 2011 on the file of SRO, Guduvancheri as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; and for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant/purchaser from in any manner dealing with the suit schedule property in pursuance of the sale deed dated 13.7.2011 executed in her favour by the power of attorney.The suit was filed along with IA.No.1707/2013 for interim relief.A1 to A14 as the respondents/defendants 2 to 16 therein, have filed their counter and written statement in I.A.1707/2013 and the wife of the second respondent defacto complainant and the second respondent as defendants 1 and 17, filed their detailed written statement in the suit and counter in the application.8.The perusal of the avements raised in the FIR would reveal that A1 to A14 as different set of defendants in the suit filed two different counters and written statements in the same.As far as the Second respondent is concerned, he has come forward with improved but different version at every stage.9.It may be true that the second respondent has by way of typed set and additional typed set, produced the copies of the documents in support of his theory regarding execution of mortgage, pendency of civil suit against the principals and cash receipts for payment of part of the sale consideration etc. The fact that the deed of power of attorney was executed in his favour by the principals and he mortgaged the property on the strength of the same and he defended the suits on behalf of the principals, may be evident from the documents as referred to above.However, other documents filed on his behalf by way of agreement of sale and cash receipts and statement of accounts are more in the nature of self serving documents and are the matters for appreciation of evidence.Till date, the second respondent, who have allegedly paid huge amount by way of sale consideration, has not come forward with any civil suit to declare the earlier sale deed executed by the owners, not binding on him.His principals i.e., A1 to A14 being the owners of the property, the validity of the sale deed executed by them cannot be seriously attacked herein.

Sections cited: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code