Judgment :- (Petitions under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for issuance of a direction to call for the records relating to private complaint in C.C.No.10841 of 2005 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 quash the same.) Common Order: The first and the second accused in C.C.No.10841 of 2005 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26750 of 2005 and the third accused in the said case is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26602 of 2005. 2. Alleging that the petitioners had fraudulently executed a sale deed for an extent of property measuring 1.65 acres in Survey No.134/1/A-1, while the respondent was actually the owner of 5.44 acres, the respondent lodged a private complaint for offences under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent has further alleged that the petitioners cheated the respondent with regard to eight cents of land in the said survey number which actually belongs to the Government. 3. The petitioners seek quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.10841 of 2005 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on the ground that the entire extent of 1.65 acres in Survey No.134/1/A-1 conveyed under the sale deed is still there intact with the respondent. It is further contended by the petitioners that a suit has been filed before the Court of District Munsif at Chinglepet by M/s.Emarald Investments Pvt. Ltd., who has purchased the remaining extent of land comprised in Survey No.134/1/A-1, against the respondent not to interfere with the property in their possession. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that based on the information furnished by the Tahsildars, the respondent has chosen to lay the private complaint with false allegations. He would further submit that it is purely a matter of civil nature, which cannot be taken cognizance of by the criminal Court. The extent of 1.65 acres conveyed by the petitioners has been taken possession by the respondent and no portion of Government poramboke was conveyed to the respondent. He would further argue that the poramboke land lies in a different survey number. 5. The extent of 1.65 acres conveyed by the petitioners has been taken possession by the respondent and no portion of Government poramboke was conveyed to the respondent. He would further argue that the poramboke land lies in a different survey number. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the respondent has specifically alleged that the petitioners having given false information that they are the owners of an extent of 1.65 acres in Survey No.134/1/A-1 conveyed the said extent when a portion thereof actually belongs to the Government as intimated by the Tahsildar. He would further argue that the petitioners having promised to make good the shortage of extent with the available remaining property in the very same survey number, surreptitiously sold away the remaining extent also to a third party and thereby the petitioners had cheated the respondent. 6. As many as four witnesses have been examined by the trial Court on the side of the complainant. Of course, there is a civil transaction between the parties which was the genesis of this private complaint. But it is found that there is specific allegation of cheating committed by the petitioners while conveying their property in Survey No.134/1/A-1. The complainant has contended that the petitioners having informed the complainant that they are the owners of 1.65 acres in Survey No.134/1/A-1 sold the entire extent while in fact eight cents comprised therein belongs to the Government as spoken to by the Tahsildars. The complainant has further come out with an allegation that the petitioners who were posted of the fact that eight cents out of 1.65 acres belongs to the Government as per the information furnished by the Tahsildar while issuing patta for 1.57 acres to the petitioners, the petitioners having promised to convey eight cents of land from out of the remaining extent in the said survey number, sold away the entire remaining extent to a third party. Such an allegation of cheating will have to be necessarily gone into by the trial Court. Further the trial is in progress. At this stage, it may not be fair to quash the proceedings. The petitioners are at liberty to defend themselves in the case of cheating launched against them with the documents available with them. The criminal original petitions are found not sustainable. 7. In the result, Crl.O.P.Nos.26602 and 26750 of 2005 stand dismissed. Further the trial is in progress. At this stage, it may not be fair to quash the proceedings. The petitioners are at liberty to defend themselves in the case of cheating launched against them with the documents available with them. The criminal original petitions are found not sustainable. 7. In the result, Crl.O.P.Nos.26602 and 26750 of 2005 stand dismissed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.