JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the charge sheet against the Petitioner in the case in C.C.No.170 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram.) 1. This Petition has been filed to quash the case in C.C.No.170 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram. 2. Mr.P.Nagarajan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the Petitioner sold the property for which the Civil Court has already granted a decree in favour of the Wife of the Petitioner. The husband of the Defendant/Defacto Complainant viz., Vimalsingh had executed a Power of Attorney regarding the land in Survey No.22/5 at Thiruvancheery Village, Mappedu Madhura, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District to an extent of 18 cents which was purchased by him from one Mr.Balamurugan, a Power Agent of one Lakshmipathi Naidu in the year 1993 through a registered sale deed vide document bearing D.No. 2694/1993 dated 07.07.1993. The husband of the defacto Complainant Vimalsingh executed a general Power of Attorney in favour of one Ravi S/o. Elumalai and the same was cancelled on 02.11.2007. After cancellation of the Power of Attorney, the husband of the defacto Complainant viz., Vimal Singh executed Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner herein through registered document No.6171/2007 dated 06.11.2007 which was subsequently cancelled on 04.07.2012. The Petitioner sold the property to one Manivannan by way of Registered Sale deed vide Document No.4250/2012 dated 04.07.2012. In turn Manivannan entered into a Power of Attorney with M.M. Builders through a Document No.916/2013. They constructed flats and sold to third parties. 2.1. The husband of the defacto Complainant viz., Vimal Singh cancelled the Power of Attorney executed infavour of the Petitioner on 28.06.2013 through Registered document No.4951/2013 and settled the property in favour of his Wife through a Registered Settlement Deed dated 10.07.2013 vide document No.511/2013. 2.2. It is the contention of the Vimal Singh that the Petitioner had not paid the sale amount to the Vimal Singh, husband of the Defacto Complainant. Therefore, it is alleged by him that he had cancelled the Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner. The defacto Complainant who is the Wife of Vimalsingh had lodged a Complaint against the Petitioner. Therefore, it is alleged by him that he had cancelled the Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner. The defacto Complainant who is the Wife of Vimalsingh had lodged a Complaint against the Petitioner. Based on the Complaint, the Respondent Police had registered the case in Cr.No.57 of 2014. After completion of the investigation, he laid the final report in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Alandur and the same was transferred to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Kanchipuram and numbered as C.C.No.170 of 2020. 2.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the said Vimalsingh approached the Petitioner stating that he owned the land in Survey No.22/5, ad-measuring 18 cents at Thiruvanchery Village, Mappedu Madhura, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and wanted to sell the same. When the sale negotiations was held between them, the sale price was fixed at Rs.15,69,000/-. At the time of sale negotiations, Vimalsingh/husband of the defacto Complainant informed the Petitioner that he misplaced the original title deed pertaining to the above said property and also informed that the property is free from all encumbrances. Believing the statement of the Vimalsingh, the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance on 30.10.2007. Then, the Petitioner visited the property and on enquiry, he came to know that Vimalsingh already executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Ravi to sell the property in respect of the very same property. Therefore, the Petitioner sought clarification from Vimalsingh for which the Vimalsingh agreed to settle the same and cancelling the Power of Attorney of Ravi at the Office of the Joint Sub- Registrar, Chennai Central as document No.1994/2007 and on the very same day, he executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of this Petitioner as D.No.1995/2007. After execution of Power of Attorney deed, the said Vimalsingh received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Petitioner on 06.11.2007 stating that to settle the claims of Ravi and Vimalsingh also executed a receipt cum Memorandum Of Understanding dated 06.11.2007 acknowledging the payment of Rs.12,50,000/- and he agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,19,600/- after the pathway issue is settled. In the MOU, the said Vimalsingh submitted that there is no entry to reach the said property and he lost the original title deed. In the MOU, the said Vimalsingh submitted that there is no entry to reach the said property and he lost the original title deed. While executing Power of Attorney in the Appeal on 02.11.2007, Vimalsingh has executed a Power of Attorney to an extent of 16 cents, instead of 18 cents. This was also pointed out by this Petitioner, then Vimalsingh executed a fresh Power of Attorney for actual extent of 18 cents on 06.11.2007 at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam. 2.4. Based on the said Power of Attorney deed, the Petitioner had entered into a sale agreement with Bibison on 09.11.2007. The said Bibison paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance and the same was directly paid to Vimalsingh by the proposed purchaser and the sale agreement was registered as Document No.5501/2007 at the Office of the SRO, Pallavaram. Thus, in total, the owner of the property Vimalsingh received a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and undertook to clear the encumbrances in respect of the property. 2.5. In the mean while, he came to know that Ravi seems to have entered into a registered sale agreement as Document No.5642/2007 dated 21.11.2007 with one Sathiyavelu in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram based on the cancelled power of attorney deed dated 02.11.2007. When the Petitioner came to know about the illegal claim of Ravi this Petitioner requested the said Vimalsingh to set right the records and to take necessary steps to clear the encumbrance, but he failed to do so as he received major sale consideration. This Petitioner herein made arrangements to put up a construction; the neighbouring land owners objected. Therefore, the Petitioner sold the property to the neighbouring land owner Mr.Manivannan for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-. In the sale deed, it was mentioned as Rs.78,48,000/- which is based on guideline value for the purpose of avoiding proceedings under Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act. Thus the real consideration was only Rs.21,00,000/-. While the matter stood thus, the wife of Vimalsingh/second Respondent had preferred a Complaint. Based on the complaint, the Respondent had registered the case in Cr.No.57 of 2014 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The husband of the Defacto Complainant had not lodged any complaint. Thus the real consideration was only Rs.21,00,000/-. While the matter stood thus, the wife of Vimalsingh/second Respondent had preferred a Complaint. Based on the complaint, the Respondent had registered the case in Cr.No.57 of 2014 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The husband of the Defacto Complainant had not lodged any complaint. The husband of the second Respondent viz., Vimalsingh revoked the Power of Attorney granted in favour of this Petitioner which has worked itself out on the execution of the sale deed dated 04.07.2012. After having revoked the Power of Attorney, the said Vimalsingh has executed a settlement deed dated 10.07.2013 in favour of his Wife/the Defacto Complainant without any iota of right. If the Petitioner has done any wrong, the said Vimlasingh, in the capacity of the principal ought to have taken civil action as there is a MOU. Instead the defacto Complainant had given the Complaint. As per the contention of the Petitioner, she has no locus-standi to prefer the Complaint. 2.6. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the purchaser of the property viz., Mr.Manivannan had already filed a Suit in O.S.No.298 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram to declare the settlement deed registered at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram as Document No.5131/2013 dated 10.07.2013 executed by Vimalsingh as null and void and the same was decreed by judgement and decree dated 18.12.2005. This was not challenged either by the defacto Complainant or by her husband till date. The said Manivannan also filed an another Suit in O.S.No.86/2013 before the learned District Munsif, Tambaram to declare the sale agreement executed by Ravi infavour of Sathiyavel as null and void and consequential relief of permanent injunction and an interim injunction was granted by the Court of the learned District Munsif. In turn, the said Ravi has filed a Suit in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram for a declaration that the sale deed executed by this Petitioner in favour of Manivannan as null and void. In the above said all the Suits, the defacto Complainant and her husband Vimalsingh were made as parties to the proceedings. In the above said all the Suits, the defacto Complainant and her husband Vimalsingh were made as parties to the proceedings. Apart from the said Suits, the said Vimalsingh filed a money suit against the Petitioner and Manivannan before this Court in C.S.No.849 of 2005 and due to the pecuniary jurisdiction amendment the same was transferred to the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.5170/2020. Till date, the Suit filed by Vimalsingh is pending. 2.7. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the defacto Complainant's husband viz., Vimalsingh has not questioned the sale in a manner known to law that he accepted the sale deed executed by this Petitioner as his power Agent and in pursuant to the receipt cum memorandum of understanding dated 06.11.2007 in and by which the husband of the defacto Complainant viz., Vimalsingh agreed to sell the property to the Petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,69,000/- and he acknowledged the receipt of Rs.12,50,000/- and has agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,19,000/-. At the time of executing sale deed, it was made clear that neither Vimalsingh nor his legal heirs will make any claim. Now the defacto Complainant does not have any iota of right to lodge this Criminal Complaint. Since the Power of Attorney deed executed in favour of the Petitioner coupled with interest and it is pursuant to the agreement for sale executed. The terms of the MOU will be binding on the parties. The said Vimalsingh has executed a settlement deed in favour of his Wife/ defacto Complainant after the sale deed was executed by this Petitioner and set up his Wife and filed Complaints thereby harassing this Petitioner to part with monies since the consideration in the sale deed dated 04.07.2012 was eye souring to them. In fact, it is only the defacto Complainant and her husband who had played a fraud on many people and this Petitioner has been made to suffer because of all illegal activities of the Vimalsingh and his Wife/defacto Complainant. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks to quash the criminal Complaint in C.C.No.170 of 2020. The Investigation Officer is incompetent regarding the validity of the Power of Attorney deed, the validity of the cancellation deed, the validity of the sale deed. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks to quash the criminal Complaint in C.C.No.170 of 2020. The Investigation Officer is incompetent regarding the validity of the Power of Attorney deed, the validity of the cancellation deed, the validity of the sale deed. When there are rival suits between the Petitioner herein and the Opponent pending on the file of the Civil Court, the laying of the final report based on the allegation in the Complaint without considering the pendency of litigations before the civil Court, which is nothing but a civil case converted into a criminal case which cannot be entertained. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash the C.C.No.170/2020 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Kanchipuram. 2.8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the reported ruling of this Court in (2021) 3 MLJ (Crl) 259 in the case of Duraisamy and Another Vs. Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore. 2.8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the reported ruling of this Court in (2021) 3 MLJ (Crl) 259 in the case of Duraisamy and Another Vs. Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore. The relevant is extracted as under: “Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Quashing of Proceedings and Charge Sheet – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406 and 420 – Petitioner under Section 482 of CrPC sought for quashing criminal proceedings and charge sheet lodged against Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, hence this petition – Whether, criminal proceedings initiated against Petitioners liable to be quashed – Held, dispute between Petitioner and Respondent, could be said to be civil dispute and it tried to be converted into criminal dispute – Continuing criminal proceedings against Petitioners would be abuse of process of law – Petitioners have not paid amount due and payable under agreement in lieu of one month notice, this by itself could not be said to be cheating or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC – No allegations as to cheating or dishonest intention of Petitioners in retaining money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to Complainant – Excepting bald allegations, no iota of allegation as to dishonest intention in misappropriating money-property – To make out case of criminal breach of trust, it was not sufficient to show that money retained by Petitioners – It must also be shown that Petitioners dishonestly disposed of same in some way or dishonestly retained same – Petitioners did not pay money to Complainant did not amount to criminal breach of trust – Even if all allegations in charge sheet taken at fact value were true, basic essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation and cheating, missing – Prosecution of Petitioners and proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC liable to be quashed – Petition allowed.” 2.9. The settlement deed executed by the husband of the Defacto Complainant in favour of the Defacto Complainant was held null and void by the Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner. The Suit was decreed in favour of the Petitioner in the year 2015 whereas the Investigation Officer had laid the final report ignoring the decree in favour of the Petitioner. The Suit was decreed in favour of the Petitioner in the year 2015 whereas the Investigation Officer had laid the final report ignoring the decree in favour of the Petitioner. On 21.10.2019, the grant of decree was infavour of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks to quash the charge sheet. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the Complaint filed by the second Respondent is reasonable and acceptable. As per the materials collected by the Investigation Officer, the ingredients of Sections 406 & 420 of IPC are attracted. The Investigation Officer had examined 30 Witnesses. Based on the statement of Witnesses examined by the Investigation Officer, the ingredients of offences under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC are made out. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) sought to dismiss this Petition as not maintainable. If at all the Petitioner contention to be accepted, it is to be considered as valuable defence available to the Accused before the trial Court. This Court exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot quash the Complaint based on the materials furnished by the Petitioners. As per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, the Court shall consider only materials furnished by the Prosecution regarding the quashing of the FIR or quashing of the Charge sheet. Therefore, this Petition lacks merits and is to be dismissed. 4. Considering the rival submissions, it is found that one of the guidelines is that the documents furnished by the Petitioner who seeks quashing the FIR or charge sheet to be unimpeachable and sterling quality of the document. Here, the decree was granted in favour of the Petitioner by the Competent Civil Court, by one such document which had been furnished by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. When both the parties had filed the Suit in O.S.Nos.86/2013 and 298/2014, the learned District Munsif has decreed the Suit in O.S.No.298 of 2014 dated 18.12.2015, had observed as follows: 1. That the Suit be and the same is hereby decreed. 2. When both the parties had filed the Suit in O.S.Nos.86/2013 and 298/2014, the learned District Munsif has decreed the Suit in O.S.No.298 of 2014 dated 18.12.2015, had observed as follows: 1. That the Suit be and the same is hereby decreed. 2. That the registered settlement deed dated 10.07.2013 in document No.5181/2013 executed between the defendants 1 and 2 and registered on the file of the 4th defendant's Office is hereby declared as Null and Void and not binding upon the Plaintiff's right in the Suit property: 3. That the defendant's 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them be and are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from in any manner making any alienation or encumbrance over the Suit property; 4. That the both parties do bear their own cost. 4.1. While so, the statement of Witnesses and based on the Witnesses, the Investigation Officer in this case filing the final report in C.C.No.170/2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Kanchipuram ignoring the decree in favour of the Petitioner cannot at all be accepted. It is nothing but, civil dispute converted into a criminal dispute Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, guidelines were issued to prevent abuse of process of Court by parties to the Suit by filing criminal Complaint. Therefore, as per the guidelines in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, the document furnished by the Petitioner and copy of the decree annexed in the typed set of papers enclosed with the Petition is a document from the competent Civil Court which is to be treated as document having sterling quality. Ignoring those decrees, laying final report against the Petitioner is found to be converting the civil dispute into a criminal dispute, only to cause harassment on the Petitioner is found to be abuse of process of Court. In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The charge sheet in C.C.No.170/2020 pending of the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Kanchipuram is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.