2018 (6) TMI 1804 - HC - Indian Laws

Ownership and possession of property - cheating and forgery - offences under Sections 120(B) 420 465 467 468 471 384 and 506(I) IPC - HELD THAT - This F.I.R has been primarily registered for the offences of cheating and forgery. The offences of cheating will be made out only if it is shown that the accused herein had dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to deliver any property to any person. In this case the defacto complainant has no where averred that he was cheated and dishonestly induced to do any act. In fact his case is that he was threatened by the first accused. When his case is that he was threatened he cannot in the same breath contend that he was cheated. The two allegations simply do not go together. This Court is of the view that the offences of cheating and forgery are clearly not made out against the petitioners herein - this Court cannot believe that Durai Pandian or his brother would have fell intimidated by the so called threats held out by the first accused. In any event the long delay in lodging this F.I.R in a case of this nature by itself renders the allegations inherently improbable. These Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of FIR against accused for offences under IPC sections 120(B), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, and 506(I).
2. Allegations of cheating and forgery against the accused.
3. Delay in lodging the complaint and its impact on the case.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The accused filed quash petitions seeking to nullify the FIR registered against them for various offenses. The defacto complainant claimed ownership of a property due to failed transactions and subsequent legal battles. The accused allegedly influenced the complainant to withdraw litigation, leading to the FIR. The court heard arguments from both sides, with the Government Advocate highlighting incriminating evidence against the accused.

Issue 2: The FIR primarily accused the petitioners of cheating and forgery. The court analyzed the elements of cheating and forgery under the law. It was noted that the complainant did not allege being cheated but claimed threats from the accused. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision to determine that the accused's actions did not constitute forgery as per the legal definition. The court concluded that cheating and forgery charges were not substantiated against the accused.

Issue 3: The court addressed the delay in lodging the FIR, spanning over four years from the alleged threats in 2007. Considering the background of the complainant and his brother, who was a lawyer, the court found the delay questionable. Referring to legal precedent, the court stated that absurd and improbable allegations could warrant quashing of an FIR. Ultimately, the court deemed the FIR in question deserving of quashing due to the delay and lack of substantial evidence.

In the final judgment, the court granted the quash petitions, thereby nullifying the FIR against the accused. The detailed analysis of the cheating and forgery allegations, along with the impact of the delay in lodging the complaint, formed the basis for the court's decision to quash the FIR.