Madras High Court
P.Wilson Thomas vs The State Rep. By on 4 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.No.4000 of 2024
1. P.Wilson Thomas
2. Renni
3. Parthiban
4. Sijo ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Coimbatore City.
(Crime No.8 of 2024)
2. Nadarajan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings as
against the petitioners in Crime No.8 of 2024, pending on the file of the
first respondent.
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.V.Karthik, Senior Counsel
For Mr.A.Parthasarathy
For R2 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.8 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.8 of 2024 on the allegations that the second respondent is an Executive Director of M/s.Champion Textile Limited, Coimbatore. He had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the petitioners on 24.01.2022 and also executed General Power of Attorney registered vide document No.802 of 2022 in favour of M/s.JMJ Housing Limited, Coimbatore, represented by its Managing Director for construction of 31 houses. Thereafter, the first petitioner violated the terms of the agreement without giving any notice to the second respondent, fabricated the forged life certificate of the second Page 2 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 respondent and had executed three sale deeds in favour of the second and other petitioners of the first petitioner's company vide document Nos.3338 of 2022, 5083 of 2022 & 5241 of 2022. The second respondent had never appeared before the Doctor who issued the life certificate. After knowing the forgery of the life certificate, the second respondent by his communication dated 28.05.2023, cancelled the Joint Development Agreement and also cancelled the general power of attorney. Even after cancellation of joint development agreement and general power of attorney, the accused persons constructed house in plot Nos. 51, 34 and 52 and also kept the display of boards at various places for sale of houses for sum of Rs.45 lakhs. Further alleged that without producing the original documents such as parent document in document No.1767 of 1995, general power of attorney, DTCP layout approval, the first petitioner executed three sale deeds in favour of other accused persons in respect of twelve plots. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4. The first petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.JMJ Housing Limited, Coimbatore. On receipt of Rs.75 lakhs from the petitioners, the company viz., M/s.Champion Page 3 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 Textile Limited, represented by the second respondent had executed joint development agreement and also had executed power of attorney to develop the property owned by the second respondent. Thereafter, M/s.JMJ Housing Limited had spent more than Rs.1.65 Crores for construction of compound wall, roads, drainage, electric line and other amineties to the property. The Joint development agreement and power of attorney were entered by the company in favour of another company. Therefore, on the strength of power of attorney, if any deed of conveyance, the life certificate of the member is not required as per the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.
3.1. That apart, the second respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sulur, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from any manner not to try to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. In the plaint there is no whisper about the fabrication of life certificate or subsequent deed of conveyance executed in favour of the accused 2 to 4 by the first accused. It shows that the second respondent had introduced a new story of his choice to make out a case for forgery and fabrication of records. After execution of joint development Page 4 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 agreement, there was escalation of prices in the real estate as such, the second respondent started given trouble and dragged the project in many ways. In order to stall the entire project, the second respondent filed suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the District Munisif Court, Sulur. In fact, the second respondent also filed an interlocutory application seeking interim injunction in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and the same was dismissed on merits by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2024. Subsequently, the main suit itself is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file comprehensive suit, by an order dated 31.01.2024. After withdrawing the suit, the second respondent lodged the present complaint with new set of allegations.
3.2. He further submitted that already the second respondent approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, by way of complaint dated 29.09.2023. After due enquiry, the said complaint was closed as civil in nature on 17.10.2023. Further, now the second respondent managed to register the FIR that too, with false allegations and giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. It is nothing but arm twisting method to settle the issue. Therefore, it is malafied one and serious abuse of process of law.
Page 5 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 3.3. He further submitted that even on perusal of the life certificate, the second respondent had appeared before the Doctor who issued the life certificate and his appearance was duly recorded and issued life certificate for execution of deed of conveyance on the strength of the power of attorney. Further even as per the complaint lodged by the second respondent, there is no allegations that the second respondent never appeared before the Doctor, who issued the life certificate. If the company has registered the power of attorney, as per the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, the life certificate is not required to register the sale deed and there is absolutely no necessity for the first accused for obtaining the life certificate. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) 2023 Live Law (Sc) 624 – Mohammed Wajid & Anr Vs. State of UP & ors
(ii) 2023 (15) SCC 135 – Usha Chakraborty & anr Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr
(iii) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82 – Sachin Garg Vs. State of UP & anr
(iv) 2023 (5) SCC 360 – Sarabjit Karu Vs. State of Pnjab & anr Page 6 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that in order to cheat the defacto complainant, the first accused with the connivance of the Doctor, forged the signature of the second respondent and obtained life certificate for execution of sale deed on the strength of the power of attorney. As per the joint development agreement, the first petitioner viz., the developer unconditionally agreed that no single site of the schedule property will be sold as site without the composite agreement as above, with a copy furnished to the land owner before the actual registration of the site concerned. However, violating the said conditions the first accused executed the sale deeds in favour the accused 2 to 4, who are none other than his own family members. The first petitioner violated all the terms and conditions of the joint development agreement, thereby cheated the second respondent.
4.1. Further the first accused failed to obtain sanction from the authority to construct house within the stipulated period of six months. For the delay, there is no explanation from the first petitioner. Thereafter, without consent and without the knowledge of the second respondent, the first petitioner had fabricated the life certificate and had executed sale Page 7 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 deed in favour of his own family members. After execution of sale deed the fourth respondent had mortgaged the said property and had availed loan. Therefore, the joint development agreement and also the general power of attorney were cancelled.
4.2. That apart, the second respondent also filed petition before the District Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act, challenging the sale deeds executed by the first accused in favour of other accused persons on the strength of the power of attorney executed in favour of the first petitioner. Though the second respondent filed suit for permanent injunction, subsequently, it was withdrawn with liberty to file comprehensive suit. Accordingly, fresh suit has been filed for declaration declaring the sale deeds dated 09.12.2022 as null and void and also for injunction in O.S.No.364 of 2022 and it is pending on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Coimbatore.
4.3. He further submitted that the second respondent also filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the issue between the second respondent and the petitioner. He further submitted that there are specific Page 8 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 allegations to attract the offence as against the petitioner. Further it is only FIR and it cannot be quashed on its threshold. The first respondent ought to have investigate further to find out the truth. Further the FIR has been registered only on 08.02.2024 and within a period of 20 days, without even completion of one month, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash the very FIR itself. It cannot be quashed in haste and hurried manner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment report (2023) 4 SCC 338 in the case of State Vs. M.Maridoss and anr., in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that without giving any reasonable time to the investigating agency to investigate the allegation in the FIR, in haste and hurried manner, it should not be quashed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. The second respondent is the Director of Company called M/s.Champion Textiles Limited. The first petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. JMJ Housing Limited. The second respondent owned property comprised in S.F.No.90/1 to an extent of 2.04 acres situated at Page 9 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 Pattanam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. In order to develop the said property, the second respondent had obtained DTCP approval for residential layout and formed layout in the name of "Rajappa Nagar"
along with other land ad measuring 2.05 acres which belongs to V.G.Rani and Sumathi, who are the daughters of the second respondent's elder brother.
7. Thereafter, M/s.Champion Textile Limited had entered into joint development agreement with M/s.JMJ Housing Limited on 09.01.2022, in order to develop the property by constructing villas. On perusal of the terms and conditions, the share of land area between them in the ratio of 50% each. The first petitioner's company agreed to construct entire share of the property including 50% share of the second respondent company as per the approved plan with the common area. Further second respondent agreed to execute the registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioner for the remaining 50% share as in the schedule property to be sold in favour of the third parties, after entering into a composite agreement with the prospective buyers. Page 10 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
8. Further, the second respondent's company had executed power of attorney dated 24.11.2022 in favour of the first petitioner's company on receipt of Rs.75,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioners had also spent more than Rs.1,65,00,000/- for construction of compound wall, roads, drainage, electric line and other amenities towards development of the property. While being so, there was a dispute between them with regard to land cost and also delay in developing the property. Therefore, the second respondent filed suit in O.S.No.73 of 2023 for injunction restraining the first petitioner's company from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner subject property by the second respondent's company.
9. On perusal of the complaint lodged by the second respondent's company revealed that the first petitioner's company had violated the terms and conditions of the joint development agreement and the first petitioner had executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4, who are none other than his own family members, that too without passing any sale consideration. The first petitioner also failed to furnish accounts details to the second respondent about the sale consideration. Therefore, immediately, the second respondent company cancelled the Page 11 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 power of attorney by the cancellation of power deed dated 26.05.2023 registered vide document No.7069 of 2023. Subsequently, it was duly communicated to the first accused company and also cancelled the joint development agreement dated 19.01.2022. However there is no whisper about the fabrication of life certificate and also the forged signature of the second respondent while obtaining life certificate.
10. Further already the second respondent filed suit in O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sulur, for permanent injunction as against the petitioner. Along with the suit, the second respondent also filed an application for interim injunction in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 03.01.2024 by the learned District Munsif, Sulur. The only contention of the second respondent in the plaint is that the first petitioner has failed to construct any building in the second respondent's share of 50% land and the first petitioner had constructed house in his share and the same has been sold out in favour of his own family members by three registered sale deeds. There is no whisper about the allegation of fabrication of any life certificate and the forged signature of the second respondent. That apart, even as per the complaint the Doctor, who issued life certificate to Page 12 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 the second respondent, is very much available in the address mentioned in the certificate.
11. On perusal of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration dated 02.02.2021, it is clear that when the company registers a power of attorney in favour of another company, if any deed of conveyance executed on the strength of the power of attorney, the life certificate of the member is not required, for the reason that if the company executed power of attorney through any one of it's directors, who represented the company, if he died, even then the power of attorney can hold good, since the company can be represented by other directors. Therefore, if the power of attorney executed by the company represented by one of it's directors, the life certificate of the person is not required while executing the deed of conveyance on the strength of the power of attorney. In the case on hand, the company of the second respondent had executed power of attorney in favour of the first accused company. Therefore, as per the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, the life certificate is not required, if the company executed power of attorney, while dealing with the property by executing any deed of conveyance.
Page 13 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
12. The main allegation is that the first accused company had obtained life certificate without the presence of the second respondent and executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4 herein. On perusal of life certificate produced by the first petitioner, while presentation of sale deed for registration, it is seen that the signature of the second respondent found in the life certificate and the power of attorney, both are one and the same. It is also evident that the second respondent did not even whisper about the allegation in the plaint in O.S.No.73 of 2023. After dismissal of the interim injunction application in I.A.No.3 of 2023 dated 03.01.2024, the second respondent had withdrawn the suit with liberty to file comprehensive suit. Accordingly, the main suit itself dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the second respondent lodged the present complaint in Crime No.8 of 2024, which is impugned in this petition alleging that the first accused had fabricated life certificate by forging the signature of the second respondent.
13. In fact, the first accused company is entitled for 50% of the land and the first accused can deal with the same as per the joint development agreement. Even assuming that there is dispute in respect of Page 14 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 allotment of share and dealing with the property, no offence is made out as against the petitioners as alleged in the FIR. In fact, after withdrawal of the suit for injunction, the second respondent instituted comprehensive suit in O.S.No.364 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, and it is pending for adjudication. That apart, as per the specific clause in the joint development agreement, the second respondent also initiated proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before this Court for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the issue between the petitioner and the second respondent and it is pending in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.394 of 2024 before this Court.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the case of Mohammed Wajid & anr Vs. State of U.P. & ors, reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 624 as follows :-
“30. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an Accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the Page 15 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the Accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance Page 16 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” Thus it is clear that the complainant would ensure that the averments made in the complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Further this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is empowered to take into account the over all circumstances leading to the registration of the FIR and also to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the records of the case over and above the averments and if need be, with due care and circumstance try to read in between the lines.
15. On perusal of the entire allegations in the FIR impugned in this petition, it is understood that the same did not disclose any offence. All the allegations are pertaining to civil dispute between the parties. In fact, the second respondent also filed suit for declaration, declaring that all the sale deed executed in favour of other accused persons as null and void. After having been failed before the civil Court and after dismissal Page 17 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 of the interim injunction application, the second respondent has now resorted to lodge the present complaint upon frustration and as a tool for oppression and harassment of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court has to see that the criminal proceedings are not permitted to be used as a weapon of harassment by instituting the present FIR.
16. Further on perusal of the complaint, the averments made thereunder are nothing but breach of contract. Therefore, it would not constitute any offence of cheating. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 2023 (5) SCC 360 in the case of Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and anr, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :-
“13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the Respondent No. 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the Appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name Page 18 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024 of the Appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by the Respondent No. 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the Appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the Appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.” The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Though the petitioner approached this Court within a period of one month from the date of registration of FIR, when the complaint does not disclose any ingredients to attract any of the offence, the petitioners need not to go ordeal of investigation in Crime No.8 of 2024. Hence the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent is not applicable to the case on hand.Page 19 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
17. Further the second respondent completely suppressed the fact that already the second respondent filed suit and the same got dismissed as withdrawn to file comprehensive suit, while lodging the complaint. Therefore, the entire dispute involved, is essentially civil in nature and the second respondent attempted to give a cloak of criminal offence, in such circumstance, when the second respondent had already resorted to civil remedy and it is pending. The present FIR is nothing but clear abuse of process of Court and it is liable to be quashed.
18. In view of the above discussions, the impugned FIR cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.8 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
Page 20 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
To
1 The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Coimbatore City.
2. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
Page 21 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
Order in
Crl.O.P.No.5481 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.No.4000 of 2024
04.04.2025
Page 22 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am )