Madras High Court
V.Ilangovan vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 April, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 28.04.2026
Pronounced on: 13 .05.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023
and
CRL MP Nos. 1561 and 1562 of 2023
V.Ilangovan
S/o. Late Vajoumouny, No.11, Vaigai Street,
Vasanth Nagar, Muthialpet, Puducherry 605003.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Inspector Of Police
Cbcid Police Station, Puducherry, Crime
No.1/2014.
2. N.Tillaynarmadha
W/o. Tillaynarasimmane, No.1, Thiruvallurvar
Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry 3.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for
the records pertaining to CC.No.618/2020 on the file of the Learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N. Manohar for M/s.Pondy Law Firm
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V. Ramachandramurthy For R1
Kandhan Duraisami Counsel For R2
__________
Page1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023
ORDER
This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in 618 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, the first respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.01 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C read with Section 34 of I.P.C alleging that on 07.08.2008 all the accused with common intention indulged in grabbing the property of the second respondent and prepared a false Power of Attorney as if it was executed by the complainant in favour of the second accused. Thereafter, on the strength of the said Power of Attorney,the second accused executed the sale deed in favour of the first accused with the help of the 3 rd and 4th accused. The 3rd accused is the Sub- Register, Pondicherry and the 4th accused is a document writer. It is alleged that the defacto complainant owned the subject property and it was sold for a very meagre amount of Rs.7,20,000/- for which also the sale consideration was not paid to the defacto complainant. Further alleged that A1/petitioner being a Civil Contractor, he was entrusted with the renovation work of the subject property and the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- by way of cash and also 61 sovereigns of gold to the first and second accused for the renovation of __________ Page2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 the subject property through the State Bank of India, United Commercial Bank Puducherry. Even as per the forged Power of Attorney, the sale consideration should have been paid to the account of the defacto complainant. However, no amount was paid to the defacto complainant by the first and the second accused. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in CC.No.618/2020 on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. To quash the same, the petitioner has filed this present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no charges are made out as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 406, 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The first accused is the bonafide purchaser of the subject property owned by the complainant and he had bought the property for a valid sale consideration. The entire sale consideration was duly paid to the second accused who is the power of attorney of the complainant. The first power of attorney was executed by the complainant while he was in France. However, in the schedule of property the Survey Number was wrongly mentioned as 260/1 instead of 261/1. Therefore, in order to correct the mistake, once again the complainant executed another Power of Attorney dated 30.06.2008 by correcting the Survey Number with a pen by hand which was not accepted by the adjudicating authority and as such once again it was returned to the complainant. Hence, once again on 30.07.2008 a fresh power of attorney __________ Page3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 was executed by the defacto complainant in favour of the second accused thereby directing the second accused to execute the sale deed in favour of the first accused without any corrections. It was also duly adjudicated in India and accordingly the second accused executed the sale deed in favour of the first accused on 07.08.2008. The entire sale consideration was duly paid to the second accused through Bank transaction. After a period of 4 years from the date of sale deed, the defacto complainant disturbed the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property by the first accused. Therefore, the first accused was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.1507 of 2012 for injunction as against the defacto complainant and others. The Civil Court also granted interim injunction in favour of the first accused restraining the complainant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. After an order of interim injunction the complainant filed the first complaint dated 26.10.2012 alleging that after having been purchased the subject property, the first accused failed to pay the sale consideration and also that he failed to re- convey the subject property and cheated cash and gold which was invested in various businesses. It is also evident from the counter filed in the injunction petition dated 02.01.2013, wherein the complainant had categorically stated that the first accused failed to re-convey the subject property. It was enquired and was closed since all the allegations were civil in nature and no offence wass made out. Once again the defacto complainant lodged second complaint on 31.07.2013. Hence, it is made clear that the defacto complainant has lodged __________ Page4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 more than one complainant for the very same set of allegations and attempted to give Criminal colour to the civil dispute. Therefore. He prays to allow this petition.
4. Per contra the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the defacto complainant owned the subject property at Puducherry which was settled by her mother comprising in Resurvey S.No.261/1 Cadastre No.244 Door No.11, Vaigai Street, Vasantham Nagar Muthailapet, Pondicherry. In order to put up a construction in the said property, the first accused approached the defacto complainant and assured her that he will complete the construction. Believing the said words the defacto complainant had paid huge money through bank transfer and also handed over 61 soverigns of jewels. After completing the construction the first accused insisted to execute a Power of Attorney in favour of his friend namely the second accused who deals with the property. Believing the said words, the defacto complainant had executed Power of Attorney on 06.02.2008. However, the Survey Number was wrongly mentioned as 260/1 instead of 261/1. Therefore, once again the second Power of Attorney was executed on 30.06.2008. However, on the strength of the Power of Attorney the second accused had executed sale deed in favour of the first accused on 07.08.2008 registered in Doc.No.4099 of 2008 and had shown the said property as vacant house site. Further in the sale deed, the first and second accused had mentioned the Power of Attorney date as 30.07.2008 which was not at all __________ Page5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 executed by the defacto complainant. Therefore, all the accused connived together and prepared a fabricated Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008 as if it was executed by the defacto complainant in favour of the said Madhavan who is arrayed as the second accused and on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, the sale deed dated 07.08.2008 was executed in favour of the first accused/petitioner. Therefore, all the accused had committed the offence under Sections 406,420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The grounds raised by the accused/petitioner cannot be considered in this petition which was filed under section 482 of Cr.P. C as the case in hand has has mixed question of law and facts and it can be considered only by the Trial Court by letting in evidence. Hence, prays to dismiss this petition.
5. He further submitted that the Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008 was not even attested from France and it was not adjudicated in India. Further now the defacto complainant is suffering from cancer and she is counting her days. Utilising his position, all the accused persons with a common intention to cheat the defacto complainant, had executed the sale deed in favour of the first accused. In fact, even as per the Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008, the entire sale consideration had to be transferred to the account of the defacto complainant. However, it was also violated and no penny was transferred to the account of the defacto complainant as sale consideration. In fact, after spending huge money, two floors construction was put up in the subject property and __________ Page6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 Gragapravasam was also performed. Suppressing the above said facts, the accused had simply registered the sale deed as if it is a vacant site. She also filed a suit in O.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Distrcit Court Pondicherry for declaration declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the second accused is null and void.
6. Mr.V. Ramachandra Murthy, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the first accused was entrusted to put up the construction in the subject property by the second accused. The defacto complainant paid huge amount by way of bank transfer in favour of the second accused and also handed over jewels. Suppressing the said facts and the fabricated the Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008 the second accused executed the sale deed in favour of the first accused. The Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008 was not adjudicated in India. Therefore, all the accused persons with a common intention to cheat the defacto complainant, executed the sale deed dated 30.07.2008 in favour of the second accused.
7. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents.
8. Admittedly the second respondent owned the subject property and she executed the Power of attorney on 06.02.2008 in favour of the second accused to deal with the property in particular to execute the sale deed in favour of the __________ Page7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 first accused which was duly notorised in France and adjudicated in India. However, instead of mentioning the Survey Number of the subject property as 260/1, the second respondent wrongly mentioned as the same 261/1. Therefore, the first accused requested the second respondent to send the corrected power of attorney. On receipt of the e-mail, the second respondent had send the second Power of Attorney dated 30.06.2008 by correcting the Survey Number by hand with pen and it was not accepted and as such once again the second accused requested the second respondent to send typed version of Power of Attorney. On the said request, the second respondent had sent another Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008 and the same was executed in favour of the second accused and was mentioned as version 3. It was duly attested in France and was adjudicated in India. On the strength of the said Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008, the second accused had executed a sale deed dated 07.08.2008 in favour of the first accused in respect of the subject property. However, there was interference at the hands of the first respondent and as such the first accused was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the subject property as against the second respondent in O.S.No. 1507 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Pondicherry.
9.The first accused also filed an application for temporary injunction in I.A.No.3143 of 2012. It was allowed and the first accused was granted interim injunction thereby restraining the second respondent from interfering with the __________ Page8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Thereafter, on 26.10.2012 that too after a period of 4 years from the date of sale deed, a complaint was lodged before the Inspector General of Police, Puducherry alleging that the first accused failed to re-convey the subject land in her favour and cheated the jewels and cash. It was duly enquired in detail and was closed. Thereafter, once again the second respondent lodged the second complaint on 31.01.2013 alleging that the sale deed executed in favour of the first accused was executed by using only the title and it is a clear violation and the terms of the Power of Attorney also not complied with. Though it was directed to conduct an enquiry, without understanding the direction, the police registered the F.I.R and it is a clear violation of provision under section 124 and 160 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was challenged before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24835 of 2013 and this Court by an order dated 14.11.2013 observed as follows:
16. The petitioner was earlier represented by another counsel. The learned counsel who appeared earlier was directed to produce the building permit and plan sanction by the Pondicherry Planning Authority. He took time on multiple occasions to produce the documents. When he took further time on 7th October 2013, the learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry and the learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the enquiry pursuant to the complaint was kept pending on account of the pendency of the writ petition and wanted permission to the police to proceed with the complaint, while adjourning the matter, I have made it clear that pendency of the writ petition would not prevent the police from taking up the complaint preferred by the fifth respondent and to register an FIR, if the complaint makes out a cognizable offence. The said __________ Page9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 observation was treated by the police as a direction to register an FIR. The police registered an FIR in Crime No.11 of 2013 against V. Illagovan and E. Madhavan on 24thoctober 2013 under Section 406, 420 I.P.C read with section 34 I.P.C. The FIR was produced before me on 25 October 2013. I have perused the FIR and it was found that the fourth respondent has registered the FIR as if the High Court has directed such registration. Therefore, I have directed the learned Senior Government Pleader, to explaint about the circumstances under which such an incorrect statement was made in the FIR. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, from the eighth respondent ,who was present in Court, submitted that it was the result of a communication gap and agreed that those statements would be removed from FIR.
17.The FIR in Crime No.11 of 2013 on the file of CBCID Police Station, Pondicherry would make it appear that the High Court has examined the complaint preferred by the fifth respondent and after arriving at a conclusion that the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, directed the police to register the FIR. Such a misleading statement would cause prejudice to the accused. The trial court would proceed as if it was only at the instance of the High court, FIR was registered. Such an impression should be avoided. Original FIR has already been produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pondicherry. Even if the statement regarding the High Court direction is deleted, it would still be there in the original FIR. Therefore, I am constrained to quash the FIR in Crime No.II of 2013 on the file of CID Police Station, Pondicherry.
In the result, FIR in Crime No.11 of 2019 is quashed.
10. Thus it is clear that the said FIR which was registered in Cr.No.11 of 2013 was quashed. Further it is also evident from the written statement filed by __________ Page10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 the first accused in O.S.No.1507 of 2017 wherein it was categorically stated that the first accused failed to re-convey the subject property as per mutual agreement. There is absolute no whisper about the fabrication of the Power of Attorney by forging her signature. Thereafter, on 12.12.2013, the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1 of 2014 challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the first accused as null and void. After having been filed the suit, challenging the sale deed, once again the second respondent the lodged the third complaint for the very same set of allegations, suppressing her earlier complaints and suits filed by her. It is also seen from records that the first accused filed a petition to discharge under section 213 of Cr.P.C and the same was dismissed by an order dated 04.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.4717 of 2022.
11.Though the petition for discharge filed by the first accused was dismissed by the Trial Court, there is no bar for the first accused to file this quash petition. It is not the case of second respondent that she did not have any knowledge about the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first accused. Even from the first Power of Attorney dated 06.02.2008 itself, she had given Power in favour of the second respondent to deal with the property that too to registered the sale deed in favour of the first accused.
12. Further on a perusal of the sale deed dated 07.08.2008, the entire sale consideration was duly paid in favour of the Power of Attorney Holder through bank transfer and thereafter the second respondent had executed a sale deed in __________ Page11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 favour of the first accused. Even then the second respondent lodged a complaint only on 26.10.2012 that too after filing a suit by the first accused in Crl.O.P.No.1507 of 2012 and obtained an order of injunction in I.A.No.3143 of 2012 on 26.09.2012. The said complaint was filed with the only allegation that the first accused failed to re-convey the subject property and cheated gold jewels and huge sum of money. There is no whisper to the extent that the Power of Attorney was fabricated and that the signature was forged in the Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008 or that she did even execute the said Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2008. Further it is not the case of the second respondent that the said Power of Attorney was not intended to be acted upon at the time of execution of it and a mutual agreement of re-purchase by way of registration for the future share. Even as per the allegations it does not constitute the essential ingredients for the offences as alleged under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
13. That apart, once the Civil Courts quashed the matter in respect of the very same subject property and the sale deed dated 07.08.2008, the second respondent has attempted to give criminal colour for a civil dispute that arose between the first accused and the second respondent.
14. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment made by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others [(2006) 6 SCC 736], held that the civil liability __________ Page12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 cannot be converted into criminal liability and it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circle to convert purely civil dispute in criminal case. This is obviously on account of prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of lender/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claim which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and dishonoured.
15. In the case of G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2000 (2) SCC 636], the Honourable Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence, criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
16. In view of the above it is made clear that no offence is made out for the offence punishable under sections 406,420 of IPC against any of the accused. Therefore, the entire proceedings is nothing but a clear abuse of __________ Page13 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 process of law and it cannot be sustained to proceed further. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and CC.No.618 of 2020 on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry is hereby quashed .Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Though the accused 2 to 4 did not file any quash petition in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice the entire proceedings can be quashed against the Accused No. 2 to 4 13.05.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SMN To.
1. The Inspector Of Police Cbcid Police Station, Puducherry,
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras __________ Page14 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
smn CRL OP No. 2689 of 2023 and CRL MP Nos. 1561 and 1562 of 2023 13.05.2026 __________ Page15 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis