ORDER : 1. The private complaint by Dr. A.N. Harilal, through his Power of Attorney Mr. Ravi Subramaniam, was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Alandur against the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 9703 of 2023 and Crl. O.P. No. 8678 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 143, 447, 448, 453, 454, 427, 506(i), 406 and 420 r/w 120(B) of IPC. 2. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 9703 of 2023 are the first and second accused. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 8678 of 2023 are the fourth to seventh accused. 3. Sum and substance of the complaint is that on 26.02.2001, the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 9703 of 2023 entered into a 90 years lease agreement with the complainant and received Rs.3,00,000/- as advance. The lease rent was fixed as Rs.2,000/- per month. As per the terms of the lease, after expiry of 10 years period, the complainant is vested with right of option to purchase the property. In the leasehold land measuring to an extent of one acre, the complainant has constructed a farm house by spending about Rs.70 lakhs and had obtained electricity service connection in his name. Exercising his option to purchase the land, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid by cash to the first accused on various dates and ready to pay the balance consideration. While so, the first accused stating that the property tax imposed is over and above the rent fixed, sought for a letter from the complainant indicating cancellation of the 90 years lease agreement. Accordingly, the complainant gave a letter to facilitate the first accused to get tax reduction. Taking advantage of the said letter, the first accused and his henchmen tried to dispossess the complainant, which has led to filing of suit for permanent injunction before the District Munsif Court, Alanthur in the month of August 2019 and the suit was numbered as O.S. No. 410 of 2019. While so, on 08.11.2019 the first and second accused along with 15 persons came to the property, illegally entered into it, broke open the farm house lock and thrown out all the articles kept inside the house and forcibly took the possession. In this connection, when the complainant went to the J-12 Kaanathur Police Station, to give complaint, the Police were busy with Ayodhya Verdict Meeting and the complaint was not received by the police. 4. In this connection, when the complainant went to the J-12 Kaanathur Police Station, to give complaint, the Police were busy with Ayodhya Verdict Meeting and the complaint was not received by the police. 4. Thereafter, on 10.11.2019, the complaint was received by Kaanathur Police and C.S.R. No. 312 of 2019 was issued and he was put in possession on the intervention of the police. However, on the next day, the third accused Mr. T.A.S. Sundar claimed that he had purchased the property from the first and second accused and the sale deed got duly registered on 07.11.2019. On the next day i.e. on 13.11.2019 the third accused damaged the compound wall of the property and also damaged the properties kept in the premises. The swimming pool has been filled with sand and the name board of the complainant affixed outside the compound wall was removed. From verification with the SRO, the complainant had come to know that the first accused had sold the property to the accused 4 to 7 including the building constructed by the complainant. The complainant apart from filing the suit for injunction, sought for police protection and registered his complaint by way of a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reported to the Court that C.S. No. 312 of 2019 registered on the complaint given by Dr. Harilal (complainant) been closed. Recording the said submission, the High Court granted liberty to the complainant to file private complaint in the manner known to law. Alleging that the first and second accused after leasing out the property by collecting advance of Rs.3,00,000/- had illegally sold the farm house constructed by the complainant contrary to the terms of the lease agreement. The purchasers of the property are the accused 4 to 7. They are the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 8678 of 2023. Knowing well about the agreement between the first accused and the complainant, they had created a sale deed in their favour and damaged the property constructed by the complainant. 6. The quash petitions filed by the first and second accused on the ground that the unregistered lease agreement for 90 years dated 26.02.2001 was breached by the complainant and his power of attorney by submitting the property for short term rental. 6. The quash petitions filed by the first and second accused on the ground that the unregistered lease agreement for 90 years dated 26.02.2001 was breached by the complainant and his power of attorney by submitting the property for short term rental. The negotiation to sell the properties to the complainant did not fructified and therefore, the lease deed dated 26.02.2001 between the first accused and the complainant was terminated and duly acknowledged by the complainant. Thereafter, the first accused sold the property to the accused 4 to 7 vide sale deed dated 07.11.2019 for consideration and possession was handed over to the buyers. The frivolous complaint given by Dr. Harilal through his representative was closed by the police after due enquiry. To harass the owners of the property and the lawful buyers, the complainant suppressing certain vital facts has filed the private complaint, which is absolutely abuse of process of law and Court. The complaint lacks bonafide and proof of material to disclose commission of any cognizable offence. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the purchasers who are arrayed as A4 to A7 and the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 8678 of 2023 in their quash petition has contended that they purchased the property from the first accused under registered sale deed dated 07.11.2019 for a sale consideration of Rs.6 crores. Since its purchase, they are the absolute owner of the property and diligently paying all the revenues payable to the Government. They are the bona fide purchasers for value and they are not aware of the prior unregistered lease agreement by the vendor with the complainant. The Encumbrance Certificate reflects Nil Encumbrance. The petitioners being bona-fide purchasers, they cannot be arrayed as an accused in the private complaint for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, since there is no element of cheating on the part of the petitioners. The specific complaint against the purchasers is that they with knowledge and in connivance with the first and the second accused had created a sale deed in their favour and made forcible attempt to evict the complainant from his lawful possession. If at all there is any breach of terms of the lease agreement, the complainant’s remedy is to approach the civil Court for enforcement of the terms of the agreement. If at all there is any breach of terms of the lease agreement, the complainant’s remedy is to approach the civil Court for enforcement of the terms of the agreement. Since the said lease agreement is for 90 years, an unregistered document has no legal value to enforce. Based on the unenforceable document, the complainant cannot cloak his grievance with criminality of cheating as against the bona fide purchasers. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 8678 of 2023, on relying upon series of judgments, emphasised that it is a case which is purely civil in nature given criminal colour and as far as the purchasers who arrayed as A4 to A7 have no criminal intention to cheat the complainant. 9. The lease of the property to the complainant is admitted by the first accused. Both the complainant and the first accused claims that the farm house in the disputed property was constructed by them. While the complainant rely upon the electricity service connection and the complaint in C.S.R. No. 312 of 2019 and O.S. No. 410 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alanthur to support his case of possession of the building and the land, the first accused refer to the planning permission granted by the local body in the year 2019 and also rely upon the service connection obtained in his name. It is contended by the first accused that the advance of Rs.3,00,000/- received from the complainant was returned to the complainant before selling the property to the accused 4 to 7. 10. The perusal of the documents relied by the complainant and the accused persons indicates that the first accused Shahani had purchased 1 acre of agricultural land comprised in S. No. 2/2A2 and 3/1B Uthandi Village from one V.V. Venkatanarayanan under a duly registered sale deed dated 05.06.1989. He has entered into unregistered 90 years lease agreement with the complainant Dr. A.N. Harilal, and his wife Mayahairlal on 26.02.2001 with right to carry out activity of reconstruction in the property described in schedule B. While schedule ‘A’ is extent of one acre, the land in S. No. 2/2A2 and 3/1B. Scheduled ‘B’ is described as half of the undivided share in ‘A’ schedule property. The first accused rely upon the communication of the complainant Dr. Scheduled ‘B’ is described as half of the undivided share in ‘A’ schedule property. The first accused rely upon the communication of the complainant Dr. A.N. Hari Lal dated 10.11.2018 wherein the complainant and his wife had informed the first accused that they are about to vacate the property with immediate effect since they are not able to use the property any more and had requested to treat the lease deed dated 26.02.2001 as cancelled and requested the first accused U.H. Shahani to return the deposit amount at an earliest date. While the petitioners/accused rely upon this letter as a proof of termination of lease, the complainant states that this letter at the request of the accused was given only to avoid excessive tax on the property. 11. The other facts reveals that this letter has not been acted upon. Neither the complainant vacated the place nor the first accused repaid the advance amount. This could be seen from the letter of the complainant dated 05.10.2019 wherein the demand draft of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant and sent to the complainant returned back to the accused. So apparently the first accused has admitted to repay the advance money to the complainant only during the month of October 2019. However, relying upon the letter of the complainant dated 10.11.2018 which was after 11 months of the alleged cancellation of lease, the first accused has come forward to return the advance money which has been returned back by the complainant stating that the letter of cancellation of lease was obtained by deceit and having constructed the building in 5000 sq. ft. by spending Rs.70 lakhs, he cannot vacate the building contrary to the terms of the lease agreement. On the same line, the complainant has presented his plaint before the District Munsif Court, Alanthur and pending in O.S. No. 410 of 2019. 12. The gravamen of the complaint is that the enforceable attempt to vacate and demolition of the building constructed by the complainant. On the same line, the complainant has presented his plaint before the District Munsif Court, Alanthur and pending in O.S. No. 410 of 2019. 12. The gravamen of the complaint is that the enforceable attempt to vacate and demolition of the building constructed by the complainant. The purchasers of the property i.e. accused 4 to 7 may got the title with bona-fide intention and may be for valuable consideration, however, the petitioners involvement in illegal eviction and demolition of the building put up by the complainant is the sum and substance of the complaint which carries all the ingredients of commission of offence attracting Section 143, 447, 448, 453, 454, 427, 506(i), 406 and 420 r/w 120(B) of IPC. 13. As far as the first and second accused are concerned, material disclose that without proper termination of their unregistered lease with the complainant, the petitioners have not only sold the property to the accused 4 to 7, but also participated in the forcible eviction of the complainant and caused damage to the property. The service connection relied by the complainant is from the year 2018 and it stands in the name of the complainant bearing No. 328:001:710. The service connection relied by the first accused bearing service connection No. 09328001139 is for the month of June 2019 and thereafter. It is for the respective parties to prove in the course of the trial about the premises for which the service connection provided. 14. As far as the petition to quash the criminal complaint, the test should be the parameter laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315. 15. From the material placed before this Court, it cannot be simply rule out as a civil dispute and no element of criminality for the parties to settle the dispute before the Civil Court. The building apparently constructed by the complainant on the strength of the terms of unregistered lease agreement, which has now been damaged and the complainant been thrown out of possession. To protect his possession, he has approached the civil Court by way of suit for permanent injunction. For the damages caused and the illegal dispossession by force, his remedy is only before the Criminal Court. To protect his possession, he has approached the civil Court by way of suit for permanent injunction. For the damages caused and the illegal dispossession by force, his remedy is only before the Criminal Court. Since the respondent police has failed to consider criminality involved in this case and closed the complaint, the private complaint been filed. However, the Magistrate after considering the materials available has taken cognizance only for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 16. The attempt of the complainant seeking direction from the High Court for including the other offences got disposed of by an order of this Court dated 12.08.2022 giving liberty to the complainant to invoke Section 216 and 319 of Cr.P.C. if necessary, at the relevant point of time. Thus, the accused persons presently facing trial for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 17. As on date, the Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 18. Section 420 reads as below: Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 19. To attract offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be element of deception at inception. In this case, the complaint indicates that the first accused has induced the complainant to give a letter dated 10.11.2018 as if, he is ready to vacate the premises and cancel the lease deed. On the strength of this letter dated 10.11.2018, the first accused has sold the property to the accused 4 to 7. It is unbelievable to accept the plea of the purchasers that they are the bona-fide purchasers of the property for valuable consideration. They have purchased the property knowing fully well about the existence of the building and the same been in occupation of the complainant. Through their henchmen they have tried to evict the complainant forcible which has led to filing of the civil suit seeking permanent injunction. The sale of valuable property does not happen overnight. They have purchased the property knowing fully well about the existence of the building and the same been in occupation of the complainant. Through their henchmen they have tried to evict the complainant forcible which has led to filing of the civil suit seeking permanent injunction. The sale of valuable property does not happen overnight. The purchasers cannot feign ignorance of the possession and enjoyment of the property by the complainant and take umbrage pleading, they are the bona-fide purchasers for value. 20. The deceptive intention to get the property and disturb the lawful possession of the complainant by illegal means is explicitly narrated in the complaint and the complainant, who on apprehension of illegal dispossession had presented the plaint before the Civil Court much before the sale transaction. Therefore, the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 8678 of 2023 cannot sustain the plea that there is no element of deception at inception of the transaction. 21. In the result, these two Criminal Original Petitions to quash the private complaint in C.C. No. 218 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Alandur, stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.