2.It is the case of the prosecution that the land in question belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner entered into an agreement on 08.01.2014 with the de-facto complainant to sell the land for a price of Rs.4,04,993/-. In this regard, the defacto complainant paid Rs.1,00,007/- as advance to the petitioner on 08.01.2014 and an agreement was entered into. It is the case of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner agreed to execute the sale deed before 30th of Chithirai month and thereafter he went back on it. The de-facto complainant came to know that the property has been mortgaged by the petitioner with one Veluchamy, which he had suppressed at the time of entering into the agreement. When the de-facto complainant brought this to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner demanded another sum of Rs.1,55,000/- to completely discharge the mortgage and execute the sale deed. The de-facto complainant appears to have given a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- on 12.03.2014 to the petitioner herein. Even thereafter when the petitioner did not come forward to register the sale, the defacto complainant sent a representation dated 04.06.2014 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and other Senior Police Officers. Even in this FIR, the defacto complainant has fairly stated that based on the representation, a petition enquiry was conducted by the police, and in that petition enquiry, the petitioner appeared and gave an undertaking on 28.06.2014 that he will return the entire sum to the de-facto complainant on 04.07.2014. Even thereafter, when the petitioner did not comply with the request of the de-facto complainant either to execute the sale deed or return the sum of Rs.1,55,000/-, the petitioner has come forward to lodge the present complaint, based on which, this case has been registered.
