M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition to call for the records in Crime No.10 of 2012 on the file of Central Crime Branch-II (Anti Land Grabbing Cell), Chennai for the offence under Sections 468, 471, 387, 448, 506(i) read with Section 34 I.P.C., and quash the same.

2. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the 1st respondent alleging that they have created documents and criminally intimidated them in the guise of claiming ownership over the property measuring an extent of 27 cents in Survey No.27/47, Pammal Village.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had inherited an extent of 27 cents in S.F.No.27/47, Pammal village and he appointed one Ganesan Maniyan, Partner of Vijay Associates as his power of attorney holder for the purpose of developing the land. The said power agent started construction after getting necessary permission and approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Pammal Town Panchayat. While so, the petitioners started disputing the ownership of the complainant and they have filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu to cancel the patta. By the proceedings dated 28.5.2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelled the patta. Aggrieved by the cancellation of patta, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram and by the order dated 16.11.2009, the appeal was allowed in favour of the 2nd respondent. Even thereafter, the petitioners were preventing workers from proceeding with the construction and disconnected the electricity. The petitioners have taken away the construction materials worth Rs. 10.00 lakhs and for that a complaint was lodged before the Sankar Nagar Police Station and the same was received in C.S.R.No.324 of 2009 and C.S.R.No.100 of 2010. The petitioners have not vacated the property and they have also threatened the complainant with dire consequences.

4. According to the petitioners, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the complainant/2nd respondent was never in possession of the subject matter of the property. Suppressing the materials facts i.e., pendency of suit and cross-suit filed by both parties, the petitioners have conveniently lodged the complaint with an ulterior motive to grab the property. According to the petitioners, a pure civil dispute has been given a criminal colour and in fact, the petitioners are co-sharers in the property in question.

5. I heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and Mr.G.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint/FIR does not disclose any criminal offence, much less any offence either under Sections 447, 448, 468, 471, 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. or any other penal provisions of law and the present case is a case purely civil dispute, for which the remedy lies before a Civil Court. He would submit that implicating a person as an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and complaint cannot be registered merely on the basis of suspicion. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in Thermax Limited and Others v. K.M.Johny and Others, (2011) 13 SCC 412. In the Judgment it is held as follows:

"34.The principles enunciated from the abovequoted decisions clearly show that for proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Code, the complaint must disclose relevant material ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. If there is a flavour of civil nature, the same cannot be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. If there is huge delay and in order to avoid the period of limitation, it cannot be resorted to a criminal proceeding.

35. Dr.A.M.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accu