1. This petition is filed to quash the charge-sheet in C.C. No. 97 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ramanathapuram.

2. The complaint was given against the petitioner by the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 419, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and registered in Crime No. 7 of 2008 by first respondent. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted and a charge sheet came to be filed and taken on file in C.C. No. 97 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ramanathapuram.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. The second respondent's father purchased a property situated in Sarkaraikottai by a sale deed dated 12.04.1996. The said property is a property measuring an extent of 1.77 acres of agricultural land in Survey No. 436/1B in Sarkaraikottai Group, Ramanathapuram District, bearing Patta No. 815. The said land was purchased from one Badhurusman. The petitioner's son, nearly after a period of eight years, seems to have purchased the same property from one Bathavisal ammal, wife of Kamruthin, in the year 2008. The petitioner's son also sold the said property to third parties in the year 2008 by registered instruments.

3.2. A criminal complaint was given by the de-facto complaint stating that the petitioner knowing full well that the de-facto complainant's father has purchased the property in the year 1994 and has sold the property to third parties through his son by forging few documents and by committing impersonation. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has created a mortgage in the year 2008 in respect of the property. The purchaser of the property from the petitioner's son is shown as Accused 2 and 3. The mortgage which was created in respect of the same property by the petitioner's son was in favour of the fourth accused. The complaint specifically states that the petitioner, who is the first accused, is the witness to the document under which the father of the de-facto complainant purchased the property. It is only with an intention to grab the lands, it is stated that the first accused has committed forgery and cheating attracting Sections 109, 419, 465, 468, 420 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. In the charge sheet that was filed, the allegations found in the complaint are reiterated and it was ultimately found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges.

4. From the charge sheet the fact that is assumed by the respondent police is that the petitioner, who has no right in the property in dispute, has created forged document behind the back of one Bathavisal ammal, wife of Kamruthin and sold the property in favour of the second accused by fictitious sale deed. It is also alleged that the petitioner has created a mortgage on 20.04.2007 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and redeemed the same on 29.05.2008. As per the fictitious sale deed, the petitioner has sold the property once again in favour of the third accused by a document dated 30.05.2008. The first accused was the attesting witness to the document by which the father of the de-facto complainant purchased the property. Hence, the title of the father of the de-facto complainant is very well known to the petitioner/the first accused in the criminal case. Since the petitioner, namely, first accused signed the fake documents only to grab the property of the petitioner he has committed the offence charged under Sections 109, 465, 468, 471 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the sale deed of the year 1996 and it is also admitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that in the sale deed dated 12.04.1996 the petitioner has signed only as attestor. Similarly, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not signed in any other subsequent sale deed and he is not a signatory either as executant or attestor to the two sale deed alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the third parties namely Accused 2 and 3 in the complai