Madras High Court
P.Stanley Buck vs State Rep. By on 5 August, 2013
Author: K.B.K.Vasuki
Bench: K.B.K.Vasuki
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 05.08.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.O.P.No.36451 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 1.P.Stanley Buck 2.Dr.P.Sethuammal .. Petitioners Vs. 1.State rep. by the Inspector of Police Karunya Nagar Police station Coimbatore District. 2.K.S.Geetha K.S.G.Arts and Science College .. Respondents R2 impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 28.7.2000 Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the case diary and quash the First Information Report as against the petitioner in Crime No.57/2007 pending on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.G.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.V.Arul G.A.(Crl.Side) (R1) O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioners/A1 and A2 have come forward with the present petition for quashing the FIR in Crime No.57/2007 pending on the file of Karunya Nagar Police Station, Coimbatore District, registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent herein.
3.The complaint dated 13.10.2007 lodged by the defacto complainant proceeds as if the defacto complainant and the accused 1 and 2 entered into an agreement for sale of the property belonging to the accused for Rs.3 crores and the accused received Rs.25 lakhs as advance and put the proposed purchaser in the possession of the property. When the accused were demanded to execute the sale deed, they evaded the same. In the mean while, the property was brought for sale by bank on the strength of mortgage deed and the portion of the property not covered under the mortgage, was also sold to the third party and thereafter, the accused evaded to execute sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant, thereby the accused cheated the complainant and the same compelled the defacto complainant to file a civil suit and criminal complaint.
4.The present petition, invoking the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed to quash the FIR registered against the petitioners/A1 and A2 on the ground that the dispute involved herein is more of civil in nature and the case is already seized by the civil court and decided against the defacto complainant and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein amounts to abuse of process of law. The petitioners in support of the averments raised in this quash petition, enclosed the copy of FIR, agreement of sale deed, judgement in O.S.No.749/1996 dated 2.7.1998 by the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore and the order dated 12.7.2002 made in CRP (PD) No.3576/2001 in the typed set filed along with this petition.
5.The perusal of the documents as referred to above reveals that the defacto complainant has, much before the filing of the present complaint, instituted suit in OS.No.749/1996 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/A1 and A2 from selling the property in question to third party. The defacto complainant/ second respondent herein has also come forward with the suit in OS.No.1545/1999 for specific performance of the contract dated 5.6.1995 or in the alternative, directing the defendants therein to pay a sum of Rs.21,92,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 24%p.a. The first suit in O.S.No.749/1996 for permanent injunction was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the plaintiff for specific performance of contract. Thereafter, the suit in OS.No.1545/1999 for specific performance of the contract dated 5.6.1995 came to be filed and the plaint in the suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in I.A.No.1094/2000, against which, CRP No.3576/2001 was filed and the same was also dismissed as not maintainable.
6.The suit for permanent injunction as well as the suit for specific performance of the contract were contested mainly on the ground of delay in seeking the relief and also on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2, the right to enforce the contract dated 5.6.1995 was already negatived by the civil forum in the suits for permanent injunction and for specific performance of the contract and the defacto complainant is unable to show that any other civil suit is pending for enforcement of the same contract, evasion of which by the petitioners herein is the cause of action for filing the present criminal complaint.
7.If that is so, this Court, considering the nature of the defence raised herein and also considering the grounds on which the civil suits filed by the plaintiff/defacto complainant against the accused ended against the defacto complaint, is of the view that when the right to specific performance of the contract is lost, the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for the same cause of action is against the interest of justice and the same amounts abuse of process of Court and wasting precious time of the Court. If the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is permitted to go on, the same is also likely to prejudice the petitioners, as such, the same is liable to be quashed.
8.In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.57/2007 pending on the file of the respondent police, against the petitioners/A1 and A2 stands quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
rk 05.08.2013
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Karunya nagar Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104.
K.B.K.VASUKI, J.
rk
Crl.O.P.No.36451 of 2007
5.8.2013