Judgment :- 1. This Petition has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 755/08 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team No. IV, Egmore, Chennai-8, towards quashing thereof. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he, as a partner of a firm known as M/s. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co., which held property at No. 33(N.P.) and 34(N.P.), Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai was approached by the defacto complainant towards purchase thereof. The petitioner had informed the defacto complainant of the original title deeds being in the custody of Canara Bank and of consent to sell the property to the defacto complainant towards settling the dues with such Bank. A sale agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 12. 2007 and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid by the defacto complainant at that stage. 3. The Complaint in the case informs that, for sale of the said property a consideration of Rs. 22,50,00,000/-was arrived at and that it was represented by the accused/petitioner herein that the original title deeds pertaining to the above mentioned property were with his brother, who was abroad at that time and that since he knew the accused in the filed of business for many years, the defacto complainant trusted and believed him, entered into an agreement for sale on 12. 2007 and a further supplementary agreement on 11. 2008 and that a sum of Rs. 6,10,00,000/- has been paid to the accused/petitioner herein. When asked in February 2008 to produce the original title deeds, the accused/petitioner herein had informed that his brother was still abroad and demanded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- It was only in March 2008 that the complainant learnt that the property had been mortgaged with canara Bank by M/s. T.S. Hajee Moossa & Co., and the banker had initiated proceedings against them before the DRT at Chennai. This came to his knowledge only when the Bank officials of Canara Bank visited the property, Stating that the accused/petitioner herein was refusing to return back the money and alleging the deceptive intention on the part of the accused since the inception of the transaction and a threat meted out by the accused, in the Complaint complains of offence under Sections 406 r/w. 420, I.P.C. having been committed by the accused. 4. 4. A typed set of papers has been filed along with the Petition and strong reliance was placed thereon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, which was objected to by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent. Mr. R. shanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgment in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) CTC 134 (SC): 2005 (1) SCC 568 and contended that at the initial stage this Court would only consider what was informed in the Complaint and the accused/petitioner cannot have this Court look into materials and documents put up by him. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others, 2008 (14) SCC 1 , wherein it has been observed as follows: “38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such materials as are indicated in section 227, Cr.P.C., can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceedings taken there from under Section 482, Cr.P.C.., the Court is free to consider materials that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Section 227 and 228, the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padi case by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred.. 5. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardakar and others, 2008 (14) SCC 1 , I have ventured to look into the papers submitted by the accused petitioner herein. On perusal of the typed set of papers produced by the petitioner, it is seen that this Petition can be disposed of on the basis of factual considerations. 6. The first sale agreement dated 12. 2007 states that the schedule mentioned property shall be free from all encumbrances, charges, etc. It only can be read to mean that the property shall be free from encumbrances as on the date of sale thereof pursuant to the agreement. 6. The first sale agreement dated 12. 2007 states that the schedule mentioned property shall be free from all encumbrances, charges, etc. It only can be read to mean that the property shall be free from encumbrances as on the date of sale thereof pursuant to the agreement. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be presumed that, merely because the fact of the property suffering an encumbrance was not mentioned in the sale agreement, the petitioner/accused intended not to carryout the ultimate purpose of the sale agreement or that accused intended to cheat the complainant. The accused under letter dated 24. 2008 informed the complainant that he had not kept up his promise and had not acted in keeping up with the agreement. A letter stands addressed by the defacto complainant on 24. 2008 merely informing that he had not seen the documents relating to the property and that he had acted sheerly upon the trust placed by him upon the accused. As against the Complaint averment of knowledge of the encumbrance in March 2008, it is pertinent to note that such letter makes no whisper about the encumbrance which the property was subject to. It is only in response to a further letter of the accused dated 5. 2008, informing that a set of documents along with encumbrance certificate had been given to the complainant and that he was aware of the original title deeds being with the Canara Bank, that the complainant has by reply dated 15. 2008 denied knowledge thereof. 7. Thus, as earlier observed from the wording of the sale agreement dated 12. 2007, this court is unable to see any intent to cheat by the accused From the conduct of parties, this Court is able to see that the complainant would have had knowledge of the encumbrances which the property was subject to. It is only to be expected that the complainant would have conducted himself as a person of normal prudence in parting with the huge sum of Rs. 6,10,00,000/-. It is also seen that pursuant to the supplementary agreement dated 11. 2008, the complainant has been put in physical possession of one half of the property to be purchased. It is seen that the Canara Bank has moved action for Recovery from the Firm of the accused by way of DRT/SARFAESI proceedings and Writ proceedings were resorted to by such firm. 2008, the complainant has been put in physical possession of one half of the property to be purchased. It is seen that the Canara Bank has moved action for Recovery from the Firm of the accused by way of DRT/SARFAESI proceedings and Writ proceedings were resorted to by such firm. Monies have been received from the complainant by the accused on 12. 2007 and 11. 2008 and payments have been effected to the Bank on 112. 2007 and 11. 2008 i.e., payments which would go towards clearing the encumbrances over the property covered by the sale agreements. From the circumstance that despite the alleged knowledge of the encumbrances over the property in March 2008, the Complaint was filed only on 9. 2008 after the exchange of communications and discussions, this Court is of the view that the complainant is driven by mala fides. Further, the order of this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 27714/2008 dated 211. 2008, reveals that by an affidavit the petitioner/accused undertook to repay a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- forthwith and the balance sum of Rs. 4,10,00,000/- on or before 111. 2008 and that the defacto complainant was not prepared to take back the amount but wanted to proceed by way of Specific Performance. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the second respondent that in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and others, 1996 (1) SCC 542 , a case wherein one facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act for holding disproportionate assets, had alleged mala fides, the Apex Court had held that the Court would not interfere at the preliminary stage and that the question of mala fides intent of the complainant was not relevant at the initial stage. This Court would not loose sight of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the case and would not hesitate to come forward to afford relief when it is of the view that one is being falsely proceeded against. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajal Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has by way of illustration indicated that where a Criminal Proceedings is manifestly attended with mala fides and or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the proceedings could be quashed. 9. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the matter in issue between the parties is purely of Civil nature and resort to Criminal proceedings is mala fides, Accordingly, the investigation in Crime No. 755/08 dated 10. 2008 on the file of the inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team No. IV, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 shall stand quashed, Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.