Allagusundaram vs A.L.S. Sankaranarayan

T. Sudanthiram, J.—The revision Petitioner is arrayed as first accused in C.C. No. 46 of 2003, on the file of the learned Additional District

Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, Sivaganga District. The Respondent herein filed a private complaint against the revision Petitioner

along with three other accused, who are father and sisters of the Petitioner, for the alleged offences u/s 120(b), 420 read with 34 of IPC. The

revision Petitioner filed an application in M.P. No. 6308 of 2004, before the Trial Court, seeking discharge from the accusation and the said

application was dismissed. Being not satisfied with the dismissal order, the Petitioner has preferred the Criminal Revision.

The case of the complainant in brief is that the suit property belonged to the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and they agreed to sell their property to the

complainant for a sum of Rs. 21,350/-. On 10.02.2001, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 met the complainant and told him that they were in urgent need

of Rs. 10,000/- in order to send the first accused abroad. They also promised to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount of Rs.

11,350/-. After receiving the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, the first accused has gone abroad. On 17.05.2001, the accused Nos. 2 to 4, executed the sale

deed in favour of 3 the complainant including the first accuser''s share in the said property. The first accused, after returning from abroad,

conspired with the other accused in order to demand more money from the complainant and thereafter, filed a suit before the Civil Court in O.S.

No. 158 of 2001, claiming partition in the said property. In the suit, he had shown the accused Nos. 2 to 4 as Defendants 1 to 3 and the

complainant as the fifth Defendant.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is not a signatory to the sale deed and he had not received the sale

consideration and while the sale was executed, he was in Malaysia and that the complainant, knows fully that the accused Nos. 2 to 4 had no right

to sell the property, in which, the first accused had a share. He also submitted that the complainant has filed the false complaint which amounts to

abuse of process of Court. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State

of Uttaranchal and Others, and stated that the civil dispute has been given a criminal color.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that, at the time of receiving the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the first

accused also was present and on behalf of the first accused, the accused Nos. 2 to 4 executed the sale deed. But, as the value of the land has gone

high, with the ulterior motive, all the accused joined together and had instigated the first accused and the suit was filed and in the said suit, the

accused Nos. 2 to 4 remained ex-parte, without supporting the case of the complainant and had been helpful to the first accused. The learned

Counsel also produced the copy of the sale deed, in which, it is mentioned that the accused Nos. 2 to 4 had accepted the sale consideration and

the same had been received for sending the first accused abroad and also for their family expenses.

This Court considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the records.

Though it is claimed by the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/-was paid as advance by the complainant, absolutely there is no material to

support it by way of documentary proof. Admittedly, the sale deed was not executed by the first accused, and on the date of execution of the sale

deed 5 he was in abroad. No power of Attorney was given by the first accused to other accused to execute the sale deed on behalf of the first

accused. The first accused after his return to India, had filed the civil suit in O.S. No. 158 of 2002 before the learned Principal District Munsif

Court, Manamadurai, claiming partition property. There is no direct material to connect the revision Petitioner/first accused along with other

accused in the said sale transaction. It is observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal

and Others, , the para 45 as under:

The Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior

motive to pressurize the accused.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the first accused should be quashed. Accordingly,

the Revision is allowed and the Petitioner is discharged from the case. However, it is made clear that this order should not be made use of by the

other co-accused, since as regards the accused Nos. 2 to 4 are 6 concerned, they executed the sale deed including the share of the first