Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 465 (MAD)

Parameswara Iyer v. N. Sankar

2010-02-02

C.T.SELVAM

body2010
Judgment :- This petition seeks to quash proceedings in C.C.No.7476 of 2004 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The case is one wherein the petitioner herein is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 468 I.P.C. 3. A reading of the complaint shows that the complainant/respondent as the owner of land measuring an extent of 7 grounds and 1300 sq.ft. at Neelangarai Village, had constituted the petitioner herein as his Power of Attorney with the intent of disposing of the property. Since the petitioner had led the complainant to believe that the property could be disposed of for a fancy price, the complainant has entrusted the title deeds of the property with the petitioner herein. The petitioner had not acted in keeping with the understanding and according to the complainant, the petitioner had neglected prospective buyers only to usurp the property of value of Rs.70 lakhs. Annoyed by the conduct of the petitioner, the complainant had cancelled the Power of Attorney earlier executed by him in favour of the petitioner. 4. The complaint further alleges that despite repeated demands, the petitioner had not returned the title deeds entrusted to him and that the petitioner was bent upon disposing of the property and entangling the complaint in litigations. The complaint informs that the petitioner has no locus-standi to deal with the property and expresses apprehension that the petitioner may go to the extent of forging documents so as to pass title since the original documents entrusted to him have not been returned. On these assertions, the complaint has been filed. 5. The matter was referred to the Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai for investigation and the case was registered by such police in Crime No.717 of 2003 for offences under Sectios 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 468 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the matter was closed since the dispute was found to be civil in nature. Thereagainst, the complainant filed a protest petition seeking reinvestigation and the lower Court has accepted such protest petition, taken the complaint on file, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process against the accused/petitioner. The lower Court has taken cognizance of the case for offences under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. 6. Thereagainst, the complainant filed a protest petition seeking reinvestigation and the lower Court has accepted such protest petition, taken the complaint on file, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process against the accused/petitioner. The lower Court has taken cognizance of the case for offences under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an agreement between the petitioner and the complainant, a registered Power of Attorney was executed by the complainant in his favour and the title deeds to the property were entrusted to him. The petitioner has taken several steps in obtaining the title deeds from the original owner, the vendor of the complainant as also spent huge sums in developing the property. While so, the complainant has, all of a sudden cancelled the Power of Attorney executed in his favour. The action of the complainant in cancelling the Power of Attorney and in executing a settlement deed of the property in favour of his wife stands challenged by the petitioner in suit pending in O.S.No.5742 of 2003 before the City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner has sought (1) the relief of declaration that the revocation of the Power of Attorney in his favour is invalid and not binding on him (2) a declaration that the settlement deed executed in favour of the complainants wife by the complainant is ab-initio void, invalid and not binding on the petitioner and (3) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defedants 1 and 2 i.e., the complainant and his wife from in any manner alienating the suit property. 7. The learned Senior Counsel informs that despite the pendency of the suit, the settlee i.e., the wife of the complainant has gone ahead and entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the property and received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance under agreement dated 27.06.2008 registered as document no.2636/08, Neelangarai Village. The learned Senior counsel submits that in such circumstances, all that the petitioner has sought was that he be compensated for the work carried out by him on behalf of the complainant. Given the fact that the complainant had denied him the same, the petitioner had been driven to file the suit now pending before the City Civil Court, Chennai. 8. Given the fact that the complainant had denied him the same, the petitioner had been driven to file the suit now pending before the City Civil Court, Chennai. 8. Since the respondent could not be served, this Court has been pleased to appoint Mr.K.Ramesh as Amicus Curaie. 9. The learned Amicus Curai submitted that once the lower Court had taken cognizance of offences and issued process to the accused, it would be improper for this Court to interfere. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had sought to thwart the investigation in respect of the case right from the beginning and had in fact sought quash of proceedings right upto the Honourable Apex Court which relief was denied and this petition was one more attempt to stall the proceedings against him. 10. I have considered the rival submissons. 11. It is true that the petitioner has sought to quash proceedings even at the stage of investigation and moved this Court as also the Honourable Apex Court with no avail. But that is an action which the petitioner is well entitled to resort to and the petitioner cannot be faulted merely because he has taken recourse to law. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the compliant, it is quite apparent that the petitioner has been put in possession of the title deeds in keeping with an agreement between the parties and differences have arisen between them which are now pending adjudication before the City Civil Court. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the petitioner has, at inception, intended to cheat the complainant or has induced the complainant in delivering the original title deeds. Hence, Section 420 IPC would not stand attracted in this case. 12. As regards the offence alleged under Section 407, the same relates to criminal breach of trust committed by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent. It is true that under the Power of Attorney, the petitioner was constituted an agent of the complainant. But it is seen that there is a genuine dispute between the parties and the same is pending adjudication before the City Civil Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigating police were well within bounds in finding the matter to be one of civil in nature and closing the investigation. But it is seen that there is a genuine dispute between the parties and the same is pending adjudication before the City Civil Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigating police were well within bounds in finding the matter to be one of civil in nature and closing the investigation. Given the aforesaid position, this Court is inclined to allow this petition and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.7476 of 2004 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13. This Court placed on record the service rendered by Mr.K.Ramesh, Amicus Curaie and directs the State Legal Services Authority to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards his fees.