Judgment 1. The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No.4821 of 2004 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 109 of I.P.C. 2. Originally there were three accused in the case. So far as the third accused is concerned, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.236 of 2005, by an order dated 28.03.2007, has quashed the proceedings. Thus, the petitioners herein alone remain to be tried. It is stated that the first petitioner is no more and the charges against him stand abated. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/second respondent herein was the owner of a landed property in question. She had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the first accused. The first accused stealthily executed a sale deed in favour of the second petitioner viz., his wife, but he has not paid any amount to the second respondent. It is further stated that it was never informed by the petitioners that the first petitioner has sold the property. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, she acted in connivance with the first petitioner and thus she is also liable for the said offences and that is how the final report has been filed by the respondent police upon which cognizance has been taken. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent as well as perused the records carefully. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner would submit that the case against the third accused has already been quashed by this Court. But a perusal of the said order of this Court would go to show that on facts, this Court found that there are no allegations against the third accused warranting trial. That was the ground upon which the case against the third accused was quashed. Further in the said order, this Court has made an observation that there are allegations against the petitioners herein making out offence. That was the ground upon which the case against the third accused was quashed. Further in the said order, this Court has made an observation that there are allegations against the petitioners herein making out offence. In view of the said clear conclusion arrived at by this Court in the earlier case that no case has been made out against the third accused, whereas the petitioners stand in a different footing, that judgment will not come to the rescue to the second petitioner herein. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner would submit that absolutely there is no material to show that the second petitioner has committed any offence. He would submit that the Power of Attorney executed by the second respondent in favour of the first petitioner is not in dispute which is evident from the subsequent cancellation deed executed by the second respondent. Assuming that the said General Power of Attorney was true and that the first accused was given power to sell the property, the terms of the General Power of Attorney shows that he was empowered to fix the sale consideration and then execute sale deed on behalf of the defacto complainant and thereafter to pay the sale consideration to the defacto complainant. But absolutely there is no material as on date to show that any amount was paid out of the said sale consideration. Whether the sale deed executed by the first accused in favour of the second petitioner is true or not and whether it was supported by consideration or not are all disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided by the Civil Court. 7. The very fact that the first accused has not paid any amount as sale consideration to the defacto complainant or accounted for the above sale money, would make out a prima facie case that the petitioners 1 and 2 herein have acted in connivance from the very inception to cheat the defacto complainant. This prima facie conclusion is irresistible. Therefore, I do not find any reason to quash the case against the second petitioner herein and this petition deserves only to be dismissed. This prima facie conclusion is irresistible. Therefore, I do not find any reason to quash the case against the second petitioner herein and this petition deserves only to be dismissed. At the same time, I make it clear that any of the observations made by me herein shall not influence the mind of the Civil Court or the learned Magistrate who is trying the case as these observations are only made for the purpose of this petition. The Civil Court as well as the learned Magistrate shall independently decide the issues/charges in accordance with law. 8. In the result, so far as the first petitioner is concerned, this petition is dismissed as charges stand abated. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, this petition is dismissed on merits. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.