IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:28.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No. 22103 of 2007 and M.P.No. 1 of 2007 F. Johnson .. Petitioner Versus The Inspector of Police, Team No.20, Central Crime Branch, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the FIR in 'X' Crime No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Team No.20, Central Crime Branch, Chennai – 600 006. For Petitioner : Ms. J. Jothi (No appearance) For Respondent : Mr.R. Muniapparaj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER The above criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records in crime No. 61 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of police, Team 20, Central Crime Branch and quash the same. 2. The prosecution case was that one Mrs Sarasu @ Sarobin, lodged a complaint with the respondent police against the petitioner and 5 others. The same was registered by the respondent police in Crime No. 61 of 2007 for an alleged offence under section 419,423, 465, 466, 467, 468 r/w 120 B, I.P.C. The ingredients of the complaint is that the defacto complainant is the owner of the property comprised in survey No. 286/1B4, to an extent of 20 cents at Vengaivasal Village, Tambaram Taluk. 3. The complainant further alleged that she had executed a power of attorney to and in favour of one Mrs. Haridevi. On the strength of the said power of attorney, a sale deed was executed in favour of the accused. The accused 2 & 3 had signed in the above said alleged, sale deed. Knowing this fact, the defacto complainant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued legal notice on 14.09.2006 to the above said Mrs. Hari devi for clarification. After receipt of this notice, the said Haridevi stated that she was not aware of the said transaction, and denied the execution of sale deed dated 23.3.2006 in favour of the 1st accused. It is further alleged that all the accused had co-operated, conspired and impersonated the said Haridevi for executing the said sale deed. Hence the case was registered against the accused person. Supporting the prosecution case, three witnesses have been mentioned. The 3rd witness is the main witness in this case. Six documents have been filed to establish the prosecution case. The 1st accused was also arrested and released on bail. 4. Now the 1st accused / petitioner herein has filed the above criminal original petition to quash the criminal proceedings on the following grounds:- The petitioner has stated that he has purchased the property on 23.3.2006 for a sum of Rs. 3,05,200/-. The sale deed was executed by the power agent, Mrs. Haridevi on behalf of land owner, Mrs. Sarasu @ Sarobin. The sale deed has also been registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Tambaram. The Principal of the power agent has filed this criminal complaint on the charges of impersonation, fraudulent execution of sale deed, and forgery etc. 5. Thereafter, the sale deed was cancelled, at the pressure of the petitioner, but the sale consideration paid was not received by the petitioner. The said Haridevi is one of the witnesses in the said case, but the petitioner has alleged that he is a bonafide purchaser and purchased the property through the said power agent, Mrs.Haridevi. The petitioner has alleged that to avoid unnecessary complications, i.e. Criminal case, he has cancelled the sale deed and restored the property to the defacto complainant. 6. The petitioner has further alleged that he is a bonafide purchase and he has been victimised. It is further alleged that the power agent of the land owner had colluded with each other. Further, without thorough enquiry, the F.I.R has been registered by the Respondent police. Hence, the petitioner seeks quash of the F.I.R in crime No.61 of 2007, on the file of the Respondent Police. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, the court is of the view that the petitioner himself had taken much interest to cancel the sale deed, without receiving back the sale consideration, which has been, allegedly, paid to the said Haridevi, power agent of the landowner. As such, the petitioner is an aggrieved person. So, it is all the more essential for him to establish his case, so that he can recover the sale consideration, which he has, allegedly, paid. 8. In order to render justice to the petitioner and also to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ identify the actual culprits, it is necessary that a trial is to be conducted. Therefore, the criminal original petitioner No. 22103 of 2007 has got to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. mps/mra Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Team No.20, Central Crime Branch, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No. 22103 of 2007 and M.P.No. 1 of 2007 kj(co) ar/30.10.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/