The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs, emphasizing the need to establish the right in the property through a civil forum and the High Court's reluctance to encourage harassment in criminal court when the allegations do not make out any offence.

1. The petitions are filed seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No,I, Poonamallee and quash the same.

2. The petitioner in both the petitions charged for offences punishable under Secs.120-B and 409 IPC for criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust. The brief fact of the case is as follows:

3. One N.T. Radhakrishna Mudalir and his wife Girijabai died on 2.10.1990 and on 22.4.2004, respectively,leaving behind 3 sons and 6 daughters. The sons are N.R. Ramakodi, N.R.Padmakodi and N.R. Navakodi. One Sasireka, Gandhimathi, Kasturibai, Renganayaki, Rajamani and Subashini are the daughters. The parents left behind family properties which remained undivided and the first son Ramakodi was looking after the management of the family property. According to the respondents, the said Ramakodi and his wife Chinthamani and one Madhavan entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit breach of trust, executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, she, in turn executed a power of attorney in favour of Madhavan, who sold the same to third parties. A complaint was given by the 2nd and 3rd respondent, who are the sisters against the petitioners and the same was registered in Cr.No.909 of 2006 by the Central Crime Branch and on investigation, the 1st respondent laid a charge sheet on the file of the learned J.M.I, Poonamalee and the same was taken on file in CC No,.2 of 2007. Seeking an order of quash, the petitioners/accused are before this Court.

4. The main ground raised in both these applications is that the entire dispute is a civil dispute and initiation of the criminal proceedings is not maintainable and the defactocomplainants have no right in the property dealt by the petitioners and the offences were not made out.

5. Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel for Mr R.Karthikeyan, for petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the legal notice dated 18.6.2006 issued by the three sisters against the brothers and the reply notice. The learned senior counsel submitted that after exchange of notices, a suit in C.S.No.1046/2007 was filed by the three sisters for partition. The learned senior counsel pointed out that while the civil court is seized of the matter, the initiation of criminal proceedings is abuse of process of law.

6. The learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 128 (M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd vs Special Judicial Magistrate) ,wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complainant to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused"

7. The learned counsel also relied on a decision reported in 2007 14 SCC 776 (All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limitd and others vs Dhanesh Badaramal Jain and another), wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the offences under sec.406 and 420 IPC and held as follows:

"We are of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint petition, even if given face value and