JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.113 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash C.C.No.113 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that defacto complainant has executed a Power of Attorney, dated 11/6/2009 in favour of A.2, for sale of property, to an extent of 96 cents of land at Annur SRO, situated at Kattampatti Village, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District. Pursuant to the said Power of Attorney, A.2 has entered an agreement for sale with A.3. Thereafter, cancelled the same and sold the property to A.4 to A.6. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4. It is the main grievance of the defacto complainant that the power agent has not submitted the accounts. Police has filed a report based on the statement recorded from the witnesses. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the entire case is a result of FIR lodged against the defacto complainant, in respect of the tresspass and criminal intimidation, in Crime No.167 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 341, 427, 447, 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code. On 13/4/2015, FIR in Crime No.32 of 2015 came to be lodged by the defacto complainant against the petitioners. The entire transaction is civil in nature. Even assuming that the Power Agent has not submitted his accounts properly, the remedy lies elsewhere and not by way of criminal prosecution. Hence prayed for quashing the final report. 6. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the case has been investigated. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that power agent has not submitted any accounts. Having received the amount from the purchaser he has neither submitted the accounts nor paid the amount to the defacto complainant. Therefore, offence under Section 420 of IPC is attracted. 8. Statements recorded from the witnesses and final report shows that the only grievance of the defacto complainant is that the power agent having sold the property not submitted any accounts, thereby committed an offence. Therefore, offence under Section 420 of IPC is attracted. 8. Statements recorded from the witnesses and final report shows that the only grievance of the defacto complainant is that the power agent having sold the property not submitted any accounts, thereby committed an offence. It is relevant to note that power of attorney was executed by the defacto complainant in favour of Santhamani, A.3 on 11/6/2009. On 18/7/2012, the third accused, power agent sold part of the property in favour of Munavar Sheriff for a total sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs. Thereafter, another sale deed was executed by the power agent on 21/6/2013 in favour of the same party. Now, FIR came to be filed in the year 2015 on the ground that amount has not been paid. 9. It is to be noted that it is nowhere the case of the defacto complainant that Power of Attorney has been executed in a fraudulent manner by playing deception exhibited by the power agent from the very inception. It is not the case of the prosecution that the sale deed is also executed fraudulently. In fact, the power of attorney has been executed voluntarily by the defacto complainant. When the intention to deceive the party is absent, from the very inception, and the document has been executed voluntarily and the defacto complainant appointed third accused as an agent to deal with the property. It cannot be said that the agent has committed an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, when he dealt with the property on the strength of the power of attorney, which was in existence at the relevant point of time. 10. The main crux of the allegation is that the agent has not properly submitted the accounts. It is relevant to note that the Power of Attorney was executed on 11/6/2009 and the sale deeds were executed by the second petitioner, dated 18/7/2012 and 21/6/2013 respectively and FIR in Crime No.167 of 2015 was lodged by Munavar Sheriff against Prakash/second respondent and FIR in Crime No.32 of 2015 lodged by the defacto complainant against the petitioners. It is no where alleged that at any point of time, the defacto complainant has terminated the power of Attorney nor he made demand for accounts. 11. It is no where alleged that at any point of time, the defacto complainant has terminated the power of Attorney nor he made demand for accounts. 11. It is relevant to note that only when the principal makes a demand, the power agent is able to render proper accounts, as per Section 213 of the Contract Act. It is not stated anywhere that such demand was made by the defacto complainant. It is also relevant to note that even assuming that the agent had benefit and has not submitted any account, it is for the principal to claim such amount from the agent, as per Section 216 of the Contract Act. Therefore this Court is of the view that even assuming that agent had not submitted any accounts as long as the power of attorney is valid, remedy of the principal is to claim the amount from the defacto complainant and the same will not at any stretch amounts to offence under Sections 420 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to attract offence, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a deception from the very inception. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that accused has fraudulently or dishonestly deceived the complaint to attract the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, in this case, the entire materials unearthed would not constitute an offence under Sections 409 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not the case that the accused has dishonestly mis appropriated or convert the property to his own use. The main grievance appears failure to submit the accounts. Therefore, civil dispute cannot be given the colour of criminality. Hence this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the complaint has been lodged with the oblique motive in a civil dispute. 12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.113 of 2017 is quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.