The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs, the misuse of criminal proceedings for civil disputes, and the complainant's locus standi to lodge the complaint.

1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.1 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II at Chidambaram and to quash the same, in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.

2. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as 3rd accused in C.C.No.1 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram. The 2n drespondent herein / defacto-complainant had filed a complaint as against one Palanidesigan and six others, including the petitioner herein, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 423, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) r/w 109 IPC. On the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent / defacto-complainant, a case in Crime No.30 of 2012 was registered by the 1st respondent-Police. On completion of the investigation, the 1st respondent-Police has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.1 of 2013. Now, the petitioner/A3 has come forward with the present petition before this Court seeking to quash the charge-sheet.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the property in Door Nos.30A, 30B, 30C situated in West Car Street and Door Nos.61, 61A, 61B, Lalkhan Street in T.S.No.1264/1, 1264/2 to a total extent of 3744 sq.ft land and building in Chidambaram Town, was owned by the ancestors of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. The said property was apportioned between the brothers in the year 1895 by a partition deed dated 29.07.1895 and as per the Partition Deed, the senior member of the family has to take care of the family and discharge their duties. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent's grandfather Venugopal Chettiar and later his paternal uncle Krishnaswamy managed the said property. During that period, the said Venugopal Chettiar leased out the said property to one Abdul Razaq for a period of 20 years in the year 1956 and extended the lease period for another 15 years in the year 1969 ie., upto 1991. Later, during the year 1993 the said Abdul Razaq died. Thereafter, the 2nd accused Mohammed Yusuf and the 4th accused Abdul Munaf encroached the property allegedly on the ground that they are the relatives of Abdul Razaq. The 2nd respondent's father Jayaraman Chettiar, who inherited the above property as the senior member of the family, had taken steps to evict A2-Mohammed Yusuf and A4-Abdul Munaf from the property. While so, A2Mohammed Yusuf and A3-G.Ramesh (Petitioner herein) created a fabricated Lease Deed dated 25.07.2008 and registered the same as Document No.3291 of 2008 and A2-Mohammed Yusuf leased out the above said property to A3-G.Ramesh (petitioner herein) for a period of 99 years. Further, A2-Mohammed Yusuf divided the property into many parts and leased out some portions to A5 to A7 and kept the remaining portions in his possession. Further, the 2nd accused -Mohammed Yusuf along with A1Palanidesigan created another fabricated Lease Document No.3506/2012 registered at Sub-Registrar Officer, Chidambaram on 12.07.2012. Through the said forged lease deed, the 1st accused Palanidesigan leased out the major portion of the said property to A2-Mohammed Yusuf for a period of 98 years. Similarly, on the same day ie., on 12.07.2012, A1-Palanidesigan and the petitioner herein (A3) created another fabricated document (Doc.No.3505/2012) registered at SRO, Chidambaram and A1-Palani Desigan Udayar leased out a portion of the property to the petitioner herein (A3) for 98 years. Thereby, A1-Palani Desigan Udayar, A2-Mohammed Yusuf and A3 (petitioner herein) have made unlawful gain. A4-Abdul Munaf encroached a portion of the property and A5 to A7 being well aware that A2-Mohammed Yusuf is not the owner of the property had entered into lease agreement with A2. Hence, the complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent/ defacto-complainant.

4. It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 that the 2nd respondent's grand-father Venugopal Chettiar leas