High Court Quashes FIR Against Builder, Finds Criminal Cloak Over Civil Property Dispute

A single-judge bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira of the Madras High Court heard a criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Sundar (fourth accused) seeking quashment of FIR in Cr.No.13 of 2025 dated 11.04.2025 registered by the Central Crime Branch, Tambaram. The petition challenged the maintainability of criminal proceedings framed against the petitioner in a dispute arising out of rival sale transactions and alleged coercion relating to a 58-cent property in Navalur Village.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR insofar as the petitioner. The court held that there was no specific averment or material to show that the petitioner had the requisite mens rea of cheating or criminal breach of trust, and that the second FIR had been used to give "a criminal cloak to a civil dispute." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Firstly, it is to be noted that in the entire impugned FIR, there is no averment against the petitioner in respect of offences under which the FIR has been registered. Further, there is no shred of material produced by the second respondent/de facto complainant to show that the petitioner had the intention to defraud or dishonest intention of cheating the second respondent/de facto complainant right from the very beginning, which is an essential requirement for the offences under Section 406 and 420 IPC to be attracted against an accused." The court also noted that "the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law and is, hence, liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioner/A4."

Background The dispute arose from a sale agreement dated 26.10.2017 by which the de facto complainant (Amraram) agreed to purchase a 58-cent property in Survey No.20/2A1 at Navalur Village for a stated consideration of Rs.7,31,09,000/-, allegedly paid in instalments. A title dispute existed between the purported vendors. The first accused and the second accused allegedly procured a document creating joint title pending civil litigation. On 16.09.2022 the de facto complainant alleged that he was lured near Marina Light House, kidnapped to the Sub-Registrar's office at Thiruporur, coerced at knife point to cancel the earlier sale agreement and to attest a subsequent sale deed in favour of Premium Prosperity Infra Pvt. Ltd./Bhoomi Builders (connected to the petitioner). The de facto complainant lodged an FIR in Cr.No.259 of 2022 for offences including kidnapping and criminal intimidation; that case was pending trial. Thereafter, in April 2025, a second FIR (Cr.No.13 of 2025) was registered alleging offences including 406 and 420 IPC against several accused including the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially civil, that the second FIR was motivated and vexatious, and that there were no allegations of entrustment or dishonest intention against him to attract Sections 406 or 420 IPC. He relied on precedents including Delhi Race Club and authorities on quashing frivolous criminal proceedings as an abuse of process. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the FIR was registered after preliminary satisfaction about cognizable offences and that investigation was ongoing. The de facto complainant maintained that the petitioner colluded with other accused and the Sub-Registrar to procure cancellation of the original sale agreement and creation of a bogus deed by coercion.

The Court examined the record and found no specific averments against the petitioner in the impugned FIR, and no material to demonstrate dishonest intention from the inception as required for cheating or criminal breach of trust. The court noted the absence of the petitioner in the earlier FIR registered in 2022 despite reference to Bhoomi Builders, inconsistencies in the de facto complainant's civil plaint (noting a materially different valuation of the property), and surrounding circumstances that suggested vengeance rather than bona fide criminal prosecution. The court relied on Supreme Court authorities on the High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the criminal process and to quash proceedings which merely cloak civil controversies in criminal terminology.

Result: The High Court quashed the impugned FIR insofar as the petitioner (fourth accused) and allowed the criminal original petition. No interim directions or other reliefs were recorded beyond the quashment as against the petitioner.

Case Details: Case No.: Crl.O.P. No.25432 of 2025 Case Title: Sundar v. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram and Amraram Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.V. Balasubramaniam, Senior Advocate for Mr. A.S. Aswin Prasanna For R1: Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2: Mr. V. Ramamoorthy