(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 16.06.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 2946 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu and consequently direct the respondent police to register FIR on the petitioner's Complaints dated 01.10.2024 and 31.07.2025 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.)

1. The Criminal Revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, seeking registration of the FIR on the complaints dated 01.10.2024 and 31.07.2025.

2. The gist of the petitioner's complaint is as follows:

                   (i) that the petitioner purchased a property measuring two acres in Survey No.250/27, Pattipulam Village, by a registered sale deed dated 10.12.2018 from one C.Dhanasekaran (since deceased), and the sale deed was executed by a power agent one R.Venkataraman, the 3rd respondent herein; that he paid a total sale consideration of Rs.2 Crores; that he developed the property by spending Rs.48 lakhs; that patta was transferred in his name and he was in enjoyment of the property;

                   (ii) that on 03-06-2022, the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelled the patta and observed that the property belonged to one Usha Verma and Ajay Nambiar; that thereafter, the vendor C.Dhanasekaran and the 3rd respondent herein assured that they would rectify the defects through one Rajan, the 4th respondent herein, who assured to rectify the defects in the title; that thereafter Rajan, offered his wife's property to the complainant/petitioner as a security till the title dispute is solved and that the 5th respondent (wife of 4th respondent) had executed a power of attorney in favour of complainant in respect of her property;

                   (iii) that thereafter, Rajan/4th respondent, the complainant/petitioner and Venkataraman/3rd respondent, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.08.2022; that 4th respondent gave a blank cheque bearing number 007253 to Venkataraman/3rd respondent; that thereafter, the complainant received a summons from the District Registrar, Chengalpattu, stating that one Lalitha claimed title over the property which was offered as security by the 4th respondent;

                   (iv) that the said Dhanasekaran and the respondents 4 and 5 viz., Rajan and Amudha filed O.S. No. 414 of 2023, before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, praying for a direction to the petitioner to receive Rs.1,17,00,000/- with interest at 2.70% per annum and to cancel the Power of Attorney executed by them.

                   (v) that the above action of deceiving, by the said Dhanasekaran and respondents 3 to 5, constituted a cognizable offence; and hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint and since no action was taken, he had filed the petition seeking registration of the FIR.

3. The 2nd respondent filed a report stating that enquiry revealed that a civil suit is pending between the parties and the dispute is civil in nature.

4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint and the report held that the complaint only discloses a dispute which is civil in nature and no cognizable offence was made out warranting registration of the FIR.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that the vendor Dhanasekaran, who is no more, and respondents 3 and 4, had misrepresented to him with regard to title of the property; that thereafter, the vendor and the 4th respondent herein offered to rectify the defects and in the meanwhile, offered the property of the 5th respondent, and there is a cloud over the title of the property that was offered by the 5th respondent as a security; and that therefore, the petitioner has suffered a wrongful loss due to the deception practised on him.

6. (i) The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that he had nothing to do with the sale transaction, except for acting as a power agent of the deceased Dhanasekaran; that he had lent money to the 4th respondent herein, and only as a security, the power of attorney was executed in his favour; and that the 3rd respondent himself was a victim.

7. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the question of title is in dispute and the 4th respondent is taking effective steps to rectify the defect in title; and that in any case, he had not made any representation to the petitioner at the time of execution of the sale deed in the year 2018; that he had only acted as a mediator and was forced to execute memorandum of understanding; that he has already filed a civil suit in O.S. No.414 of 2023 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, along with his wife and the deceased Dhanasekaran; that since the Civil Court is seized of the matter, no investigation can be ordered at this stage; and that the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the prayer.

8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order.

9. It appears that the petitioner had purchased the property as mentioned above by a sale deed bearing No.13704 of 2018 dated 10.12.2018. The vendor is one Dhanasekaran. The said Dhanasekaran is reported to be no more. The 3rd respondent acted as a power agent in the said sale deed. When the petitioner's patta was cancelled, the petitioner once again approached the deceased Dhanasekaran and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner thereafter, came to know that the 4th respondent had initially paid the entire sale consideration to Dhanasekaran, and at his instance Dhanasekaran had executed the power of attorney to the 3rd respondent, since the 4th respondent owed money to the 3rd respondent. These facts are brought out in the subsequent memorandum of understanding dated 27.08.2022 between the petitioner, and respondents 3 and 4.

10. The averments made in the memorandum of understanding makes it very clear that the 3rd respondent had absolutely no interest in the property. His only interest was to recover money from the 4th respondent. Since the 4th respondent wanted to purchase the property initially and was instrumental in the transaction, it appears, he offered to rectify the defects, along with the original vendor Dhanasekaran. In fact the 4th respondent also issued a blank cheque bearing No.007253 and entrusted the same to the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent offered the property of the 5th respondent as security for ensuring that the 4th respondent rectifies the defects in the title. It appears thereafter that the property offered by the 5th respondent also had a dispute over title. Therefore, the 4th respondent, along with Dhanasekaran and the 5th respondent, filed a civil suit in O.S. No.414 of 2023 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, for the prayers as stated above, which is said to be pending. Pending this revision, the parties attempted settlement, which failed.

11. From the above averments, it would be clear that neither the 3rd respondent nor the 5th respondent would be responsible in any manner for any representations said to have been made by the original vendor Dhanasekaran and subsequently, by the 4th respondent. In fact, the 3rd respondent himself had lent a huge sum to the 4th respondent, which is borne out by the records. The 4th respondent offered the property of the 5th respondent as security and the 5th respondent had not made any representation. The original vendor, Dhanasekaran is no more.

12. Hence, this Court is of the view that a Deputy Superintendent of Police / Assistant Commissioner of Police of District Crime Branch, Chengalpattu, can be directed to enquire once again only into the alleged role played by the 4th respondent and as to whether he had committed the offence of cheating or any cognizable offence. It is needless to say that if the Officer is of the view that the 4th respondent had committed any cognizable offence, it is open to him to register an FIR, and if no cognizable offence is made out, he shall file a report, accordingly. The said Officer shall conclude such enquiry, within a period of eight weeks from today.

13. The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, accordingly.