The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved over the respondents Private Complaint in C.C.No.150 of 2009 filed on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, under section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for the alleged offences under sections 120 (b), 406, 465 and 468 I.P.C. Sum and substance of the complaint is that the petitioners herein by inducing the Respondent's father Muthu on 18.06.2007 obtained signatures in the stamp papers making him to believe that he was only a witness to the document, but obtained a Sale deed in respect of the respondents property on 18.06.2007 in favour of 1st petitioner herein.
2.According to respondent, on 01.12.2006 the respondents father along with his family members executed a Sale Agreement in favour of one K.A.Sivagami, vide a Document 2805/2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Bhavani. Previously the respondents father executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of one K.Pramanandhakumarar and the same was subsequently cancelled.
3.In the meantime the 1st petitioners father namely Ashokan who was a good friend besides serving accountant of respondents father, using such relation managed to induce the Respondent's father Muthu and fraudulently obtained a Sale deed as stated above. Therefore the above private complaint was filed for the alleged offences under
sections 120(b),406,465 and
468 IPC under
section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, who also served as part and parcel of the above illegality.
4.According to the petitioners the transaction said to have taken place between said K.A.Sivagami and the respondents father is an apparent collusion to defraud the 1st petitioner and overcome the earlier Sale Deed dated 18.06.2007 executed in favour of the 1st Petitioner which has been Registered as a Document No.2488/2007 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Bhavani to which the 2nd petitioner is one of the witnesses to that document. More so, there is no allegation against petitioners as to impersonation or Criminal breach of Trust.
5.The allegation against the petitioners that they misrepresented the Respondent's father and made to believe him that the Respondent's father is only witness to the document is an afterthought, in view of hike in Market value of the land alienated to the 1st petitioner.
6.However, regardless of lack of ingredients of
sections 405 and
420 of I.P.C. and the above facts the impugned complaint was taken on file. The present complaint is ill-motivated to get un-lawful enrichment by giving a criminal colour to a civil dispute.
7.Per Contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that even if the allegations discloses civil disputes, the same by itself may not be ground to hold that the criminal complaint should not be allowed.
8.It is his further contention that at the threshold a criminal complaint cannot be quashed citing a civil dispute.
9.In this regard he relied over the following decisions reported in I) 2014 (1) MWN Crl. 259 and II) 2009 (1) SCC 516) wherein it was held that:
i) If the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favor of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
ii) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. 2013 (4) MD Crl. 622.
10.On hearing upon the rival submissions and perusing the complaint, this Court is able to see that Para 6 of the subject Complaint attract the ingredients of
Sections 24 and
25 of I.P.C. Again the execution of the sale deed dated 18.06.2007 is also admittedly not in dispute. Only thing to be decided is as to whether the said document was executed in the circumstance as projected by the respondent or in otherwise as projected by the petitioners.
11.In the said factual back ground, this Court having found that the allegation leveled by either side remain unsupported by Oral or documentary evidence, is of the firm opinion that the case on hand is not a fit case to exercise its inherent powers to quash the complaint. All the above disputed facts is liable and will be capable of establishing only by way of Trial through Oral and Documentary evidence.
12.It is made clear that the observation made in this Crl.O.P shall not have any influence over Trial of the above complaint and as well also in any civil proceedings that may be pending adjudication between the parties.
13.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.