Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2104 (MAD)

C. Radhakrishnan v. Dhanalakshmi W/o Shanmugam

2025-04-15

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 583 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, at Chengalpet. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent owned a property comprised in S.Nos.388/13 (part), 388/10 and 388/14 along with 1/4th Part well situated at Kayarambedu Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. It was acquired by the second respondent through a Will dated 17.08.1989 registered as Doc.no.76 of 1989 executed by one Dhanammal. She died on 07.10.1999 and after her demise, the second respondent became the absolute owner of the said property. Thereafter, she also mutated the records in her favour. Thereafter, the second respondent settled the said property in favour of her son, namely, Ravichandran vide Settlement deed dated 20.07.2015 registered as document no.8770 of 2015. Thereafter, the said Ravichandran was thwarted by the accused and on compulsion, her signature was obtained and a Power of Attroney got executed in favour of the first accused on 01.08.2016 and the same was kept pending as Pending document no.510 of 2016. On the very same day, the Power holder namely the first accused had executed sale deeds in favour of the second accused, who is none other than one of the partners of M/s.Krishna Estate, in which the first accused is also one of the partners. Subsequently, on 08.08.2016, both the documents got registered on 10.08.2016. The said Ravichandran cancelled the Power of Attorney by cancelling the Power of Attorney document registered vide document no.8200 of 2016. In turn, on 31.08.2016, once again the said Ravichandran executed a settlement deed in favour of the second respondent registered as document no.5961 of 2016. Hence, the complaint. 3. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent did not take any action and as such, the second respondent approached this Court and only after a direction, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime no.435 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 406, 415, 420, 463, 468 and 470 of IPC. However, after investigation, the FIR was closed and a closure report was also filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet. On receipt of the referred charge sheet notice, the second respondent filed a protest petition and the same was treated as private complaint. However, after investigation, the FIR was closed and a closure report was also filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet. On receipt of the referred charge sheet notice, the second respondent filed a protest petition and the same was treated as private complaint. After recording the sworn statement and considering the materials of the protest petition filed by the second respondent, the trial Court had taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 & A2. The second respondent has no locus to lodge any compliant since it was her son who had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first petitioner on 01.08.2016 and not her. In turn, the first petitioner had executed the sale deed in favour of the second petitioner on 01.08.2016. After having been registered vide document nos.8065, 8066 & 8067 of 2017, the son of the second respondent cancelled the Power of Attorney by Cancellation Deed dated 10.08.2016, registered vide document no.8200 of 2016. Thereafter, on 31.08.2016, the son of the second respondent had executed Settlement Deed in favour of the second respondent and registered vide document no.5961 of 2016. Subsequently, the second respondent lodged a compliant and the same was closed as a mistake of fact on the ground that all the allegations are civil in nature. In fact, the sale deeds registered in favour of the second petitioner were also challenged before the District Registrar, Chengalpet. After due enquiry, by order dated 17.10.2022, the complaint was dismissed by the District Registrar, Chengalpet. The District Registrar categorically concluded that while cancelling the Power of Attorney, the son of the second respondent did not even whisper about coercion or compulsion while executing the Power of Attorney in favour of the first petitioner. The son of the second respondent has stated specific reason for cancelling the Power of Attorney which is that the first petitioner did not sell the whole property, as per the Power of Attorney and as such, he revoked the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the first petitioner herein. 5. The son of the second respondent has stated specific reason for cancelling the Power of Attorney which is that the first petitioner did not sell the whole property, as per the Power of Attorney and as such, he revoked the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the first petitioner herein. 5. He further submitted that though the Power of Attorney was kept pending as Pending document no.510 of 2016 and the sale deed was also kept pending as pending document, subsequently, on 08.08.2016, both the documents i.e. Power of Attorney as well as the sale deeds were registered. Therefore, the District Registrar, dismissed the complaint filed by the second respondent. In fact, the person, who executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the first petitioner, i.e, the son of the second respondent, did not lodge any complaint. At the instance of the second respondent, her son created further encumbrance by cancelling the Power of Attorney and subsequently, executed the Settlement Deed in favour of the second respondent. Further, the second respondent also lodged a complaint before the Director of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning, with regard to approval of the property. It was ordered that till the declaration of title, no approval can be granted and also instructed the Registration Department not to register any document in respect of the subject property. It was challenged before this Court in WP.No.34151 of 2022. This Court by order dated 05.06.2023, allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the order passed by the Director of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning and observed that the first petitioner and the second respondent did not go to the Civil Court to establish their right and title over the property and to substantiate that they have been defrauded, it is stated that the very execution of Power of Attorney document was done by force under duress. Further, it was observed that what the first petitioner and the second respondent were not able to achieve in any Civil Court by filing appropriate suit, cannot be permitted to be achieved, indirectly through the authorities under various enactments. Neither the authorities nor the police can fill up the place of civil Court, which is the only form having competent jurisdiction to deal with the nature of allegations that have been made by the first petitioner and the second respondent. Neither the authorities nor the police can fill up the place of civil Court, which is the only form having competent jurisdiction to deal with the nature of allegations that have been made by the first petitioner and the second respondent. Even till today, the second respondent has failed to approach the civil Court for declaration declaring that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the first petitioner and the subsequent sale deeds executed, as null and void. Therefore, the present compliant is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied upon several judgments. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents would submit that the first and the second respondents are the partners of M/s.Krishna Estates. They are real estate brokers. They are habitual offenders. In fact, they are involved in several criminal cases relating to land grabbing matters. The Power of Attorney dated 01.08.2016 itself was executed under coercion by the first accused. When the said document was kept pending as the Pending document without any power, the first accused had executed the sale deeds in respect of the subject properties in favour of the second accused. Therefore, on the date on which the sale deeds were executed in favour of the second accused, the first accused did not even have any power to execute such sale deeds in the first place. On verification of the Encumbrance Certificate, the said Power of Attorney as well as the sale deeds were not reflected and as such immediately on 10.08.2016, the son of the second respondent cancelled the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the first accused vide document no.8200 of 2016, and later proceeded to execute a settlement deed in favour of the second respondent on 31.08.2016 registered vide document no.5961 of 2016 for the same subject property. Therefore, the second respondent has locus standi to lodge a complaint. Hence, the petitioners cannot challenge the locus of the second respondent. Even assuming that the second respondent has no right or title over the subject property, any one can set criminal law in motion. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal Vs. Hence, the petitioners cannot challenge the locus of the second respondent. Even assuming that the second respondent has no right or title over the subject property, any one can set criminal law in motion. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat & Others, 2017 Supreme (SC) 936 , has held that anyone can set criminal law in motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. In the case of Lalit Kumari Vs. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the FIR is a pertinent document in the criminal law procedure of this country and its main object from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book and punish the guilty. The criminal proceedings are initiated in the interest of public to apprehend and punish the guilty. Therefore, the second respondent has every locus and can very well lodge a complaint. In fact, immediately after a Power of Attorney dated 01.08.2016, the son of the second respondent lodged a complaint on 21.09.2016 and he was issued CSR No.1236 of 2016. After execution of the settlement deed in favour of the second respondent, the second respondent also lodged a complaint. However, all the complaints were not acted upon by concerned Jurisdictional Police. At last, the FIR has been registered and the same was also closed as a mistake of fact. Therefore, by way of Protest Petition, the second respondent filed a compliant, in which, the trial Court had taken cognizance and issued summons to prosecute the accused. He also submitted that this Court repeatedly held that the disputed facts cannot be entertained by way of a quash petition. This Court should see whether there are allegations in the complaint which forms the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. Now the trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 415, 420, 463, 468 and 470 of IPC, Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the present quash petition. 7. This Court should see whether there are allegations in the complaint which forms the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. Now the trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 415, 420, 463, 468 and 470 of IPC, Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the present quash petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire material placed on record. 8. Originally the subject property owned by the second respondent, had executed settlement deed in favour of her son on 20.07.2015 vide document no.8770 of 2015. In turn, the second respondent's son had executed a Power of Attorney on 01.08.2016 in favour of the first petitioner and the same was kept as Pending document. On the very same day, that too in the presence of the second respondent's son, the sale deed was also executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner on the strength of the Power of Attorney. Both the parties are arrayed as A1 & A2. Since the Power of Attorney was kept pending, the sale deeds executed in favour of the second petitioner were also kept pending. Both the Power of Attorney and the sale deeds got registered on 08.08.2016 by the Registering Authority. The specific case of the second respondent is that her son was under coercion and compulsion, his signature was obtained by the first petitioner in the Power of Attorney document and presented the same for registration. However, the son of the second respondent did not lodge any complaint immediately after the execution of the Power of Attorney dated 01.08.2016. On perusal of the CSR issued to the second respondent vide proceedings dated 21.09.2016, revealed that he lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners grabbed the subject property. It is not the case that his signature was obtained under coercion and compulsion in the Power of Attorney document. That apart, on a perusal of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney document dated 10.08.2016 registered vide document no.8200 of 2016 does not even whisper about those allegations such as his signature was obtained under coercion and compulsion in the Power of Attorney document. That apart, on a perusal of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney document dated 10.08.2016 registered vide document no.8200 of 2016 does not even whisper about those allegations such as his signature was obtained under coercion and compulsion in the Power of Attorney document. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the District Registrar, Chengalpet categorically held as follows: “as Document No.8060/2016, Book 1, dated 1 st day of August 2016 in the office of the Joint II sub-Registrar of Chengalpattu, for the schedule of property. The power of attorney agent Mr. C. RADHAKRISHNAN didn't sell the whole property. So, I hereby revoke the general power attorney. Deed Doc No.8060/2016, written by me on 1 st day of August 2016. The purpose for which the power agent appointed is not fulfilled. From today Mr. C. RADHAKRISHNAN mentioned above has no power to do any act with respect to the schedule mentioned property; so far he has not made any agreement with 3 rd parties or any development in the schedule of property.” 9. From the above, it is clear that Power of Attorney was cancelled only on the ground that the first petitioner did not sell the whole property. Therefore, the son of the second respondent intended to cancel the Power of Attorney that too after the execution of the sale deeds. 10. It further shows that the son of the second respondent had absolute knowledge about the presentation of the Power of Attorney document for registration and also execution of the sale deeds by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner. Further, after knowing the fact that already sale deeds were executed in respect of the subject property in favour of the second petitioner, once again, he executed settlement deed in favour of the second respondent herein and registered vide document no.5961 of 2016 dated 31.08.2016. It shows that the second respondent and her son, after having executed the sale deeds through Power of Attorney, created encumbrance over the same subject property. Further, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Director of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning, Chennai, thereby objected to grant of any planning permission to develop the subject property. It shows that the second respondent and her son, after having executed the sale deeds through Power of Attorney, created encumbrance over the same subject property. Further, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Director of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning, Chennai, thereby objected to grant of any planning permission to develop the subject property. It was ordered that both the parties are claiming title over the property and till the declaration of their title, no planning permission can be issued and also issued a direction to the Registration Department, not to deal with the property. It was challenged by the first petitioner herein in WP No.34151 of 2022. This Court by order dated 05.06.2023 held as follows: “16. The 4 th and 5 th respondents were aware of the fact that the petitioner was acting upon the power of attorney that was executed in his favour and on the same day, the Sale Deed was also executed by the petitioner in favour of the 6th respondent. The 4 th and 5 th respondents had given police complaint in this regard on 24.04.2017. At the best, the police complaint and the resultant investigation can only end in finding out as to whether the 4th and 5th respondents were cheated and their lands were grabbed by the petitioner. Ultimately, if the 4th and 5th respondents wanted to establish their right and title over the subject property and more particularly, when the power of attorney document is a registered document, they ought to have approached the Civil Court and challenged those documents as null and void and non est. Instead, the 4th and 5th respondents were approaching the police, making representation to the Registration Department to cancel the documents and also making complaint before the planning authority to cancel the layout approval. All these steps that were taken by the 4th and 5th respondents can only be a temporary measure and none of these authorities can decide the right and title over the subject property. It is very unfortunate that the 4th and 5th respondents did not go to the Civil Court to establish their right and title over the property and to substantiate that they have been defrauded and the very execution of power of attorney document was done by force under duress. These are facts which can be established only before a Civil Court by adducing evidence. These are facts which can be established only before a Civil Court by adducing evidence. These facts can never be decided by the authorities under the various enactments or by the police in the course of their investigation. Till date, the 4th and 5th respondents have not chosen to approach the Civil Court and it is not known as to whether they were properly advised at the relevant point of time to approach the Civil Court. The entire effort that has been taken by the 4th and 5th respondents does not ultimately take them to the correct forum to establish their right and title over the subject property. What the 4th and 5th respondents were not able to achieve in a Civil Court by filing an appropriate suit, cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly through the authorities under various enactments. Neither the authorities nor the police can fill up the place of a Civil Court which is the only forum of competent jurisdiction to deal with the nature of allegations that have been made by the 4th and 5th respondents. 17. In the light of the above discussion, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.20368/22/DCP.5 dated 12.11.2022, is unsustainable and the 1 st respondent lacked the power and jurisdiction to pass the said order and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. The 1 st respondent apart from lacking power and jurisdiction, also failed to consider the fact that the third party interest were created and the purchasers were not put on notice. That apart, the 1st respondent had proceeded to cancel the approval for the entire 5.90 acres when the dispute pertains to only 55¼ cents. 18. In the result, the impugned proceedings of the 1 st respondent in Na.Ka.No.20368/22/DCP.5 dated 12.11.2022, is hereby quashed and this writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 11. Thus, it is clear that though this Court specifically directed the second respondent to approach the civil Court seeking declaration, to declare that the Power of Attorney as well as the subsequent sale deeds as null and void, the second respondent even till today, did not file any suit, challenging the power of Attorney as well as the sale deeds. Thus, it is clear that though this Court specifically directed the second respondent to approach the civil Court seeking declaration, to declare that the Power of Attorney as well as the subsequent sale deeds as null and void, the second respondent even till today, did not file any suit, challenging the power of Attorney as well as the sale deeds. In fact, though the FIR has been registered as against the petitioner in crime no. 435 of 2017, on the file of the Guduvancheri Police Station, Kancheepuram District, wherein, after completion of the investigation, filed a closure report, referred as a mistake of fact. Only on the Protest Petition, now the trial Court had taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners without considering the above facts and circumstances. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that no offence is made out as against the petitioners to proceed and prosecute them. Further, though the second respondent has locus to lodge a complaint, but the fact remains that no offence is made out as against the petitioners as stated supra. 13. In the light of the above discussion, the judgments cited by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners are not helpful to the case on hand and hence, the impugned private complaint in CC No. 583 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court no.II, at Chengalpet cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed. The impugned private complaint in CC No. 583 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, at Chengalpet is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.