IMPORTANT POINT
Malicious criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue.

ORDER

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.—These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the F.I.R registered in Crime No.19 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C on the file of the first respondent.

2. Since the issues involved in the petitions are one and the same, both the Criminal Original Petitions were taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.17689 of 2021 are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3893 of 2022 is arraigned as Accused No.6.

4. The case of the prosecution and findings in Crl.O.P(MD)No.17682 of 2021 are as follows:-

4.1. The second respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint, who is none other than the own sister of the first petitioner/first accused alleging that she executed a release deed in respect of her ancestral properties, which was acquired by her father in favour of her mother and the first petitioner in the year 2002. Subsequently, the second respondent unilaterally cancelled the said release deed. In pursuant to the cancellation of the release deed, patta which was mutated in the name of the second respondent/second accused was cancelled by the appropriate authority and joint patta was issued in favour of the first petitioner and second respondent by proceedings, dated 26.07.2021. However, the first petitioner executed a gift settlement deed in respect of the very same properties in favour of his wife, namely, the second petitioner herein by settlement deed, dated 27.07.2021 with the help of the third petitioner and other accused persons and committed the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.

7. On a perusal of the records revealed that the second respondent herein executed a release deed in respect of her share in favour of her mother and the first petitioner with regard to the subject property. However, after a lapse of 18 years, that too, unilaterally cancelled the deed of release on 14.02.2020, which was registered as Document No.3 of 2020. Further, there was no notice to the first petitioner and he was not a party to the cancellation of release deed executed by the second respondent herein. In fact, the registering authority also without issuance of any notice to the parties to the release deed, registered the cancellation of release deed. The registering authority has no power and jurisdiction to register any deed of cancellation unilaterally. That apart, the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the patta without giving an opportunity of hearing to the first petitioner by an order, dated 26.07.2021.

8. While being so, the second respondent lodged the present complaint alleging that the first petitioner executed settlement deed in favour of his wife, namely, the second petitioner with the help of other accused persons. There is absolutely no basis for registration of F.I.R in the absence of cognizance criminal offence, since it is a complete civil dispute between the brother and sister with regard to the property, that too, the second respondent executed the cancellation of release deed and the same got registered without any knowledge and without any notice to the first petitioner herein. The question of relinquishment and the legality of subsequent cancellation of the same by the same person has to be challenged before the civil Court and not by the criminal Court. Thus, it is clear that the intention of the second respondent is only to harass the petitioners under threat of the criminal prosecution. There is no impersonation, fraud or forgery committed