JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam pending in C.C.No.73 of 2018 and quash the criminal proceeding pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam in C.C.No.73 of 2018.) 1. Sole accused is the petitioner herein. Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam, in C.C.No.73 of 2018 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the land in Survey No.616/7, Sattanathapuram, North side measuring about 7 cents was came to the possession of the 2nd respondent by way of settlement deed from his sisters and the said property was originally purchased by the father of the second respondent. The said 2nd respondent wants to give a power of attorney to sell and maintain the said property. 3. The 2nd respondent on 11.02.1997 gave a power of attorney to the petitioner and the same was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar. Later, the petitioner sold the said land to herself by a sale deed dated 29.03.2006 and the said sale deed was duly registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sirkali as document number 522/2006. The sale consideration was Rs.3,000/- and the said amount was also paid to the 2nd respondent. Later the said petitioner has sold the land to Anitha by a sale deed dated 09.09.2009. 4. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant came to know about the alleged land grabbing after 17 years and after issuing legal notice, has made a complaint before the 1st respondent alleging the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and also filed a Civil Suit before the Court for declaration, to declare the sale deeds are void and for recovery of possession. The same is pending before the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai in O.S.No.81 of 2015. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent has completed the investigation, filed the charge sheet, taken on file in the above CC. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 1st respondent police. 6. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent has completed the investigation, filed the charge sheet, taken on file in the above CC. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 1st respondent police. 6. The substratum of the complaint and the final report is that the defacto complainant Annadurai is the absolute owner of the 50 cents of land in S.No.616/1A3 and he gave General Power of Attorney to the accused under a document No.09/97 dated 11.02.1997. Thereafter, he came to know that in exercise of powers under the General Power of Attorney Deed, the petitioner had executed sale deed for herself under the sale deed document No.522/2006 for Rs.1000/- on 29.03.2006. Thereafter, she had executed a sale deed in favour of one Anitha, under Document No.2257 of 2009 dated 09.09.2009 for the sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. 7. After perusing the General Power of Attorney Deed dated 11.02.1997 and Sale Deeds dated 29.03.2006 and 09.09.2009, I find that under the said registered document viz., the General Power of Attorney, the defacto complainant M.Annadurai had appointed the accused S.Sumathi as his agent, empowering the agent to negotiate the sale transaction and to receive the sale consideration and to execute the sale deed on his behalf and in exercise of such power under the said document dated 11.02.1997, it appears that the power agent had executed a sale deed in her favour on 29.03.2006. It is alleged that it is a fraud and cheating. I am unable to agree with the said finding for more than one reason. 8. As per the Power of Attorney Act, the General Power of Attorney, who got a deed in his favour by the Principal can execute a sale deed to any person nominated by the Principal or to any person as per the clause contained in the Power Deed. In the present Power Deed dated 11.02.1997, the accused who is an agent is empowered to sell to anyone. Such a power can be exercised by the power agent and in such exercise of power, she can execute sale deed either to the member of her family or her relative or friends or to herself. Merely because she has executed a sale deed in favour of herself, the same cannot be termed as a 'cheating' within the definition of Section 417 of IPC. Merely because she has executed a sale deed in favour of herself, the same cannot be termed as a 'cheating' within the definition of Section 417 of IPC. 9. It remains to be stated that in the decision rendered in C. Selvan and another Vs. P.C. Ramasamy and 13 others, in S.A.Nos.647 and 912 of 2014 dated 05.04.2022, I had occasion to consider a similar situation wherein following the decision in Abdul Muthalip v. M. Samsudeen, [ 2009 (4) LW 650 ], held that when a party had executed power deed, while the same is in existence, an Agent can execute a sale deed in favour of any other person and that even an agent can purchase the property and the principal cannot repudiate it merely because it is for the agent's benefits. Hence, a power agent in view of the power under the General Power of Attorney Deed, can execute the sale deed to anyone, including friends and family members and also to herself and the same is not violative of the Power of Attorney Act. 10. Section 417 of IPC, reads as follows : 417. Punishment for cheating.—Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 11. Further, as a land owner after 29.03.2006 sale deed, the petitioner had executed the sale deed in favour of Anitha on 09.09.2009 and therefore, even the second document cannot amount to cheating as defined under Section 417 of IPC and hence, I find that a General Power of attorney who executes sale deed pursuant to a General Power of Attorney Deed to anyone is empowered to sell the land either to her family members or to herself. Merely because the power agent had sold the land in exercise of such a power, the same cannot be termed as a 'cheating', nor a 'land grabbing' as defined in the legal terms and hence, I find that there is no element of cheating involved in the transaction effected by the petitioner/accused, much less, it does not fall within the definition of land grabbing and hence, I find that it is open to the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to agitate the matter before the Civil Court which he has already done by filing a suit in O.S.No.81 of 2015 before the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai and hence, I find that a case of civil nature has been given a criminal colour so as to coerce the accused. 12. As stated supra, the power agent is entitled to execute the sale deed in his favour. The same cannot be termed as a cheating or a land grabbing and a civil case cannot be given a criminal colour in order to prosecute before the criminal Court and hence, continuation of the present C.C.No.73 of 2018 would amounts to abuse of process of law and hence, the same cannot be allowed. 13. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby quash C.C.No.73 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam and the bail bond executed by the petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.