The High Court quashed the final report against the petitioner alone in a cheating case. The petitioner, a bonafide purchaser who re-conveyed the disputed property to the defacto complainant to demonstrate lack of criminal intent, was not to be criminally prosecuted in the absence of mens rea.
Final report against the petitioner alone was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :25.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
CRL.OP.No.7452 of 2024
and
CRL.MP.No.5412 of 2024
M. Ravi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police, Team XXIV, LFIW-II, CCB-I, Egmore.
2. C.S.Chandrasekar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the First Information
Report in Cr.No.209 of 2023, on the file of the 1 st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) No appearance for R2
1/4
O R D E R
The petitioner herein purchased a property from one Baskaran, Ex-
Secretary-cum-Liquidator, Rangarajapuram Co-operative Building Society on 23.05.2023. Soon after the purchase of the property, he came to know that the case has been registered in Cr.No.209 of 2023 by CCB-1, Egmore, for offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 143 r/w. 120(b) of IPC against four named accused and others and this petitioner, been named as first accused. Immediately, he has gone to the Sub-Registrar Office and cancelled deed in his favour and got it registered on 25.10.2023 and thereafter, he had come to this court for quashing complaint against him since he is a bonafide purchaser for value from the liquidator and who is the prime accused in this case, who
has suppressed the material information from the petitioner before selling it to him.
2. This court, on 27.03.2024, had recorded the submissions made
by the counsel and on perusal of the petition, prima faciely, satisfied that
the petitioner is the victim of crime and having cancelled the deed before
filing final report, instructions must be obtained from this court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4
However, it is now reported to this court by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent that final report
has been filed against four accused including this petitioner on 02.05.2024. This court to ascertain whether the property been reconveyed to the defacto complainant caused notice to the defacto complainant through first respondent police.
3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent states that the defacto complainant appeared in person and informed that he is not interested in pursuing against this petitioner who has re-conveyed the property to him.
4. In the light of the above fact, by re-conveying the property back to the defacto complainant soon after put to notice about the defect in the title and the possession is with defacto complainant, this petitioner cannot be proceed criminally in the absence of mens rea and therefore, the final report as against this petitioner alone is quashed. With regard to the other accused persons, the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law.
3/4
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
gv
5. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gv
To
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
CRL.OP.No.7452 of 2024 and CRL.MP.No.5412 of 2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal proceeding against a bonafide purchaser who re-conveyed property to the accused to show lack of mens rea can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Ravi
The State Rep by the Inspector of Police
C.S.Chandrasekar
G.Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
