The first accused and the third accused in Crime No.36 of 2011 on the file of Central City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City have filed these quash petitions. The prayer is to quash the FIR that has been registered against them for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 506(I) IPC.

2. The defacto complainant in this case is one Ashok Pandian. The case of the defacto complainant is that the property in question originally belonged to one Samuvel who has been shown as the second accused in this case. The said Samuvel sold 4.32 acres in favour of one Matheesa Pandian on 03.11.1986. He also sold the remaining portion to the extent of 4.26 acres in favour of Durai Pandian who is none other than the elder brother of the defacto complainant herein. Though both these documents were presented for registration, the transaction could not be fully completed for want of income tax clearance certificate. The allegation of the defacto complainant is that Thiru.Matheesa Pandian, sold his 4.32 acres of land in his favour on 27.11.1986. Thus, the entire property in question, according to the defacto complainant came under the ownership of Ashok Pandian and Durai Pandian.

3. But, as already pointed out, for want of income tax clearance certificate, the sale deeds could not be released. Since the defacto complainant and his brother developed an apprehension that the land may change hands, they filed O.S.Nos.1415 of 1987 and 1417 of 1987 before the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli against the Samuvel for restraining him from alienating the property. Likewise, the said Samuvel also filed O.S.No.64 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli against Matheesa Pandian, Durai Pandian and others. Matheesa Pandian also filed O.S.No.230 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli. Durai Pandian also filed OS.No.232 of 1995. All the three suits were tried together and disposed of by judgment and decree dated 09.07.1999. The suit proceedings ended in favour of the Durai Pandian and Matheesa Pandian. Aggrieved by the same, Samuvel filed A.S Nos.18 of 2000, 214 of 1999 and 215 of 1999 before the learned First Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. The appeal proceedings however ended in favour of Samuvel and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was reversed. Questioning the same, Matheesa Pandian and Durai Pandian filed Second Appeals before the Principal Bench of this Courtin SA.Nos.1676, 1677 and 1678 of 2001. In the said Second Appeals, interim order of status quo was granted. The said second appeals are said to be still pending.

4. While so, the first accused Thiru.Karuppasamy Pandian is said to have prevailed upon Ashok Pandian and Durai Pandian to withdraw the litigation initiated by them before this Court. In contravention of the interim order of status quo passed by this Court, A2/Samuvel had sold the property in favour of one Palani Kumar/A3 hereien on 26.02.2007. Even prior to this, CONT Petition No.524 of 2005 came to be filed as Samuvel had conveyed portions of the land in question in favour of few other parties. The threats said to have been held out by the first accused Karuppasami Pandian and the sale executed in favour of Pazhani Kumar form the cause of action for lodging the impugned F.I.R.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the accused 1 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) pointed out that there are clear materials to implicate the petitioners herein. He took this Court through the statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.PC. He also contended that this Court ought not to view with disfavor the delay occasioned in launching the impugned F.I.R.

7. This F.I.R has been primarily registered for the offences of cheating and forgery. The offences of cheating will be made out only if it is shown that the accused herein had disho