CRL OP/3723/2026 of GUNASEELAN Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Inspector of Po on 13 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 4200 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore.

2. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were the owners of lands comprising in Survey No. 384/2, 385/2B and 385/2C, measuring a total extent of 4.97 acres, situated at Selakarichal Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. They intended to sell the said property. The de facto complainant agreed to purchase the property at the rate of Rs.2.40 crores per acre. Pursuant thereto, all the accused persons received a sum of Rs.11.50 crores as advance and also executed receipts acknowledging the same. Subsequently, when the accused approached the de facto complainant for execution of the sale deed, the defacto complainant came to know that a civil suit filed by the relatives of the accused in respect of the very same property was already pending. On being questioned, the accused assured the defacto complainant that they would obtain the consent of the parties to the suit and thereafter execute the sale deed in his favour.

4. Believing the said assurance, the defacto complainant waited for the completion of the transaction. However, without the knowledge of the defacto complainant, the accused executed sale deeds in respect of the very same property in favour of third parties with an intention to cheat him. When questioned by the defacto complainant, the accused allegedly threatened him with dire consequences and refused to refund the advance amount received from him. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 24 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 329(3) & 351(3) of BNS, After completion of investigation, the respondent police filed final report and the same taken cognizance by the trial court.

5. The petitioners/accused contended that they had neither entered into any agreement for sale nor agreed to sell the subject property. According to them, they never suppressed the fact that a civil suit relating to the subject property was already pending. The petitioners further submitted that they had received only a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. They stated that no agreement for sale was executed and that the document relied upon by the complainant was merely a receipt acknowledging receipt of Rs.50,00,000/-. It was further contended that the defacto complainant had issued two cheques only as security and the details of the same were also reflected in the receipt.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that non-payment or non-refund of the advance amount would not attract any criminal offence and that the dispute is purely civil in nature involving a money transaction. According to the petitioners, if the defacto complainant was aggrieved by the alleged non-execution of the sale deed, he ought to have instituted a suit for specific performance. However, even till date, no such suit has been filed. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the allegation regarding non-refund of the advance amount does not constitute any criminal offence.

7. On perusal of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it is revealed that the accused and the de facto complainant had entered into negotiations for the sale of the subject property at the rate of Rs.2.40 crores per acre. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, towards the proposed purchase of the subject property, the defacto complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1.50 crores as advance consideration to all the accused persons. Though the advance receipt produced reflects payment of only Rs.50 lakhs, the statements recorded under 161(3) BNS during the course of investigation disclose that the defacto complainant had in fact paid a total sum of Rs.1.50 crores towards the proposed purchase of the property.

8. Even assuming that no formal agreement for sale was executed and that the document relied upon is only a receipt, the stand taken by the accused themselves is that the defacto complainant ought to have filed a suit for specific performance, thereby indicating the existence of a transaction relating to the sale of the subject property. The materials further reveal that the accused had allegedly suppressed the pendency of a civil suit relating to the subject property and received the advance amount from the defacto complainant. When the issue was raised by the defacto complainant, the accused are stated to have assured him that, after obtaining consent from the parties, who had instituted the suit, they would execute the ale deed in his favour.

9. However, despite having received the advance amount from the defacto complainant, the accused subsequently sold the very same property to third parties. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant questioned their conduct, the accused allegedly threatened him with dire consequences and also refused to refund the advance amount received from him. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgement of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.28771 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 dated 10.10.2017, wherein the relevant paragraph reads as follows: “ 10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. {See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11]}.

11. In the judgment reported in (2001) 3 SCC 513 (Alpic Finance Ltd., vs. P.Sadasivan), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

10. The facts in the present case have to be appreciated in the light of the various decisions of thisCourt. When somebody suffers injury to his person, property or reputation, he may have remedies both under civil and criminal law. The injury alleged may form basis of civil claim and may also constitute the ingredients of some crime punishable under criminal law. When there is dispute between the parties arising out of a transaction involving passing of valuable properties between them, the aggrieved person may have right to sue for damages or compensation and at the same time, law permits the victim to proceed against the wrongdoer for having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. Here the main offence alleged by the appellant is that respondents committed the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and the case of the appellant is that

respondents have cheated him and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver property. To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false and which the person practicing the deceit knows or believes to be false. It must also be shown that there existed a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of commission of the offence. There is no allegation that the respondents made any willful misrepresentation. Even according to the appellant, parties entered into a valid lease agreement and the grievance of the appellant is that the respondents failed to discharge their contractual obligations. In the complaint, there is no allegation that there was fraud or dishonest inducement on the part of the respondents and thereby the respondents parted with the property. It is trite law and common sense that an honest man entering into a contract is deemed to represent that he has the present intention of carrying it out but if, having accepted the pecuniary advantage involved in the transaction, he fails to pay his debt, he does not necessarily evade the debt by deception.”

10. Judgments relied upon by the accused are not applicable to the case on hand for the simple reason that the accused had intention to cheat the de facto complainant from the very inception, since they suppressed the fact that there was another suit was pending in respect of the subject property while offering to sell the subject property to the de facto complainant. Further, they assured that they would get consent from the person who filed the suit and execute the sale deed in favour of the de facto complainant. However, without the knowledge and consent from the de facto complainant, the accused sold the subject property in favour of a third party.

11. On perusal of records revealed that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners and there are materials available to constitute the offence under Sections 318(4), 329(3) & 351(3) of BNS.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.

15. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioners to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.

16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4200 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore. However, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

17. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA To

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore District - 640 018. Crime No.24/2024

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA CRL OP Nos. 3723, 3759 & 3794 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2601, 2628 & 2629 of 2026 13-10-2026