1. Petitioner seeks quash of proceedings in Crime number 658 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. In his complaint dated 26.04.2012, the second respondent has informed of the petitioner, one another and himself being the sons of Venkatachalam Chettiar and of their having a sister by name Alagammai. He has informed of the petitioner having been given in adoption to a paternal uncle and the petitioner having married his sister's daughter, who was unwell. He has stated that the petitioner coerced his father into executing a Will in the year 1979 behind the back of the family members and of a compromise entered into whereunder the petitioner was put in charge of properties towards avoiding litigation and in the hope that the petitioner and his adoptive father amicably and expeditiously would divide the properties within a year. The second respondent complains of the petitioner's failure to do so over a period of 25 years, of his not having given any account of the administration of the estate nor the details of sale of properties and of various letters having evoked no response. Informing breach of trust and misapp