S.Mahendran v. The Commissioner of Police,

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition praying to call for the records and quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No.72 of 2025, on the file of the second respondent/complainant.

¶2The petitioner has been arrayed as A3 in Crime No.72 of 2025, dated

12.06.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that A1 purchased the property from the original owner, with lawful documents, which are genuine, for valuable consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner had purchased the property from A1 and therefore, he has also purchased the property for valuable consideration and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and there are no allegations against the petitioner and that there is no specific overt-act attributed against the petitioner. Therefore, the further dispute is only civil in nature, and the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the FIR may be quashed.

¶3The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the other accused had absconded and A1 had purchased only lesser extent and knowing fully well that he had got a right

and title only to the said extent and knowing also fully well that he had got a right and title only to the extent he sold the property of larger extent and with the connivance of the other accused, A1 is able to sell the property with a larger extent which he was not entitled to.

¶4A reading of the complaint and also the materials on record, shows that the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out two sale deeds in the name of the petitioner and also the sale deed in the name of A1, though the petitiner's counsel submitted that A1 has purchased the property from his predecessor, as he has sold the same to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged. A reading of both the sale deeds show that though the said survey number is in respect of four aces, only two acres of the property have been sold and all that two acres of A1 has not been purchased by him. But however, the boundaries in the sale deed are in the name of A1 and A2, the same is not tallied and however, prima-facie, there are materials to proceed with the investigation and therefore, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to co-operate for the investigtion being conducted by the investigating officer, and the respondent-Police is directed to complete the investigation by expediting the same, and file the final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order, before the Court concerned.

¶5With the above observations/direction, this petition is dismissed.

22.07.2025 cs To

¶1The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Police Office, Avadi, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Avadi Central Crime Branch, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.VELMURUGAN, J cs

22.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 22.07.2025 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN -- S.Mahendran, S/o Mr.C.Subramaniam .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Police Office, Avadi, Avadi, Tamil Nadu 2. The Inspector of Police, Avadi Central Crime Branch, Avadi, Tamil Nadu 3. Rajendra Kumar, S/o Basanth Rai .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying to call for the records and quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No.72 of 2025, on the file of the second respondent/complainant. For petitioner : Mr.M.B.Mushtaque Ahamed For respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for RR-1 and 2