N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.32 of 2016, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent herein is the absolute owner of the property measuring about 1.25 acres situated at Survey No.58/4A2 of Uthamapalayam Village. The second respondent purchased the above said property from one Ganesan on 17.08.2012. The said Ganesan purchased the above said property from one Narayanasamy Iyer on 15.01.2009.The petitioner herein purchased another property of the said Narayanasamy Iyer in Survey No.72/2 measuring about 84 cents. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner with an evil design, mentioned bogus boundaries in the registered sale deed dated 12.06.2013 and thereby grabbed about 80 cents of lands in survey Nos. 58/4A2 out of 1.25 acres of land belonging to the second respondent.

3. The first respondent police based on the above facts has registered an FIR for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 447 of IPC.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions.

Admittedly one Narayanasamy Iyer was the common owner for the property in both survey Nos.58/4A2 and survey No.72/2 and he had sold survey No.58/4A2 to one Ganesan by way of a registered sale deed dated 15.01.2009. Even though the extent of the property was shown as 1.25 Acres, curiously the boundaries were not shown in the sale deed. Similarly when Ganesan sold the said property to the second respondent by sale deed dated 17.08.2012, he also did not show the boundaries to the property.

The petitioner had purchased 84 cents of land in Survey No.72/2 from the said Narayanasamy Iyer by virtue of sale deed dated 12.06.2013 and the sale deed of the petitioner specifically contained the boundaries. Therefore, the petitioner had nothing to do with Survey No.58/4A2 since he had purchased the lands only in Survey No.72/2.

The second respondent filed a suit in OS No.297 of 2014 against the petitioner seeking a relief of declaration and permanent injunction with regard to survey No.58/4A2 for an extent of 1.25 Acres and the said suit was dismissed as not pressed by a judgment and decree dated 03.02.2015.

Therefore, the second respondent for the reasons best known to him decided not to prosecute the civil suit.

The second respondent thereafter gave a criminal complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Land Grabbing Special Cell, Theni against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has grabbed his lands. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Land Grabbing Special Cell after conducting through enquiry, on 21.01.2016 closed the complaint as civil in nature, since the complaint did not attract any cognizable offence, warranting registration of an FIR.

The second respondent again preferred a complaint before the Chief Minister's Cell and the same was again forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Land Grabbing Special Cell, Theni. After enquiry, the second complaint was also closed on 30.06.2016.

The second respondent suppressing the earlier two complaints, preferred the third complaint based on the very same facts before the Superintendent of Police, Theni District and thereafter filed Crl OP(MD)No.21304 of 2016 before this Court and got direction for the registration of the case in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 and based on this direction the first respondent had registered an FIR in Crime No.32 of 2016.

The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the entire procedure that was followed by the second respondent amounts to a clear abuse of process of law and after the closure report of the earlier two complaints, the present FIR on the very same set of facts is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

A reading of the