Judgment :- 1. Petitioners 1 to 6 in this petition have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 6 in a case registered on the file of the City Crime Branch, Coimbatore City as Crime No. 7 of 2007 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b) and Section 420 I.P.C. The said case was registered based on the complaint of the defacto complainant who has been arrayed as the 2nd respondent in this petition. The petitioners have sought for an order quashing the First Information Report by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 2. Even though all the six accused persons have been joined together in filing the petition, subsequently the petitioners 1 and 2 / A1 and A2 seem to have engaged a different counsel. The present counsel on record for petitioners 1 and 2 alone appeared and the counsel who originally filed the petition on behalf of all the accused and has been retained by the petitioners 3 to 6 / A3 to A6 has chosen to keep away from the Court. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is also absent. Hence this Court is constrained to pass an order after hearing the submissions made by Mr. K. Kannan, learned counsel representing the petitioners 1 and 2 and Mr. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate [Crl. side] representing the State. 3. A complaint was lodged by the second respondent herein / defacto complainant alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 120 (b) and 420 I.P.C by all the petitioners herein and based on the said complaint the above mentioned case in Crime No. 7 of 2007 was registered on the file of City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. In fact, the complaint contains every details regarding the alleged cheating and conspiracy. According to the complaint, the defacto complainant was made to believe that on his payment of the amount due to the State Bank of India with which the property of the first petitioner had been mortgaged by deposit of title deeds, the same would be conveyed to the defacto complainant for a price agreed upon; that he had also made payments as advance and towards part payment of the sale consideration; that the defacto complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 67,60,000/-to the State Bank of India for discharging the mortgage as per the understanding between the first respondent and the Bank as one time settlement; that the defacto complainant paid the said amount on the basis of a letter of consent and authorisation given by the first petitioner; that subsequent to the said payment of a total sum of Rs. 60,60,000/-to the first petitioner as well as the State bank of India, Kurichi branch, the first petitioner was evading execution of sale deed; that subsequently on a suspicion regarding the bonafide of the first petitioner, the defacto complainant verified with the Office of the Sub-Registrar Ganapathi, Kovai whereupon to his shock and surprise, he found that a sale deed had been executed by the first petitioner in favour of petitioners 2 to 6 on 11.12.2006 in respect of a major part of the property, which was agreed to be sold to the defacto complainant and that only thereafter, he understood the fraud played upon him and cheating committed by the accused in coordination among them. It is the further averment made in the complaint that the first petitioner made false promise deceptively and thereby induced the defacto complainant to part with such a huge amount viz., Rs. 67,60,000/- without a genuine intention of conveying the property to the defacto complainant and that the petitioners 2 to 6 helped the first petitioner in doing so. 4. In the light of such clear allegation made in the complaint, the first respondent has chosen to register the above said case for the offences mentioned supra. The First Information Report registered by the first respondent based on the complaint of the defacto complainant is sought to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners 1 and 2 would contend that the document now they have produced along with the petition would clearly establish that the allegations made in the complaint are false and the sale transaction between the first petitioner on the one hand and petitioners 2 to 6 on the other hand was a genuine one. It is trite law that a complaint cannot be quashed based on the documents produced by the accused in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. It is trite law that a complaint cannot be quashed based on the documents produced by the accused in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C unless such a document is admitted to be a genuine one and the same clinches the matter pointing out the fact that the complaint itself shall be an abuse of process of law. In this case, the only document relied on by the petitioners are 1)copy of the sale deed dated 07.12.2006 executed by the first petitioner in favour of the petitioners 2 to 6 2)Copies of challans and showing remittance, all dated 11.12.2006. Those documents are not admitted documents. Further more, there is nothing to show that the said amount was paid towards the Bank loan obtained by the first petitioner from the State Bank of India, Kurichi Branch. The only fact that can be ascertained from those documents is that the under the above said amounts were remitted into the said branch. Two chellans were for remittance to the credit of R.G. Computers Firm (P) Ltd., and one Chellan was for the remittance of Cheque in the name of the first petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that the said payments were made for the discharge of the Bank loan. Further more, admittedly the first petitioner had availed huge amount as loan from the State Bank of India, Kurichi Branch and by virtue of one time settlement of a sum of Rs. 60,60,000/- had to be paid. But it is curious to note that in the first document produced by the petitioners viz., the sale deed dated 07.12.2006, the sale consideration was quoted as Rs. 21 lakhs which is just above 1/3 rd of the amount admittedly paid to the Bank as one time settlement. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the documents relied on by the petitioners, which is not admitted to be genuine by the opposite party, do not have the clinching effect to show that the complaint itself was an abuse of process of law. In such circumstances, the contents of the complaint alone shall be the yardsticks on which the question whether a prima facie case has been made out or not warranting registration of a criminal case has to be answered. 6. In such circumstances, the contents of the complaint alone shall be the yardsticks on which the question whether a prima facie case has been made out or not warranting registration of a criminal case has to be answered. 6. As pointed out supra, in this case clear and unambiguous allegations have been made in the complaint attracting the penal sections under which the case has been registered. It is not a case in which the contents of the complaint, even it accepted to be true on its face value, shall not make out a prime facie case. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition seeking an order quashing the FIR and the same deserves to be dismissed as unsustainable. 7. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.