JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

The Criminal Original Petition No.10106 of 2019 has been filed to call for the records in Crl MP No.2690 of 2018 in CC No.104 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Ariyalur for the alleged offences under Section 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in Crime No.253 of 2017 and quash the same.

2. The Criminal Original Petition No.23752 of 2018 has been filed to call for the records in Charge sheet in CC No.104 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Ariyalur and quash the same.

3. The Criminal Original Petition No.1881 of 2019 has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl MP No.2690 of 2018 dated 28.09.2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ariyalur and transfer the investigation pending on the file of 1st respondent to 9th respondent.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the family of Kalichettiyar was running several businesses. He had six sons and one daughter. The defacto complainant is one of his son and A1 to A5 are his other sons. All of them were partners. He died on 28.12.1991. It is alleged that the accused persons created a forged and fabricated Release Deed dated 05.02.1992, as if the defacto complainant is relinquishing his rights in the business after receiving his share. This document was also produced before the sales tax authorities and the name of the defacto complainant was removed from the official records. This came to be known to the defacto complainant only at a later point of time. Based on the complaint given by him to the respondent police on 11.06.2017, an FIR came to be registered against all the accused persons for an offence under Section 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

5. The respondent police investigated and filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Ariyalur and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.104 of 2018 and the Court below also took cognizance of the same against the accused persons. Crl OP No.23752 of 2018 has been filed by the accused persons challenging the proceedings pending before the Court below.

6. The defacto complainant filed a petition in Crl. MP No.2690 of 2018 before the Court below to order further investigation and to transfer the investigation to another agency. The Court below entertained the said petition and by an order dated 28.09.2018, ordered for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC and directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation. This order is challenged by the accused persons in Crl OP No.10106 of 2019.

7. The Defacto Complainant has filed Crl.OP No.1881 of 2019 challenging the very same order passed by the Court below insofar as the Court below not transferring the further investigation to some other agency.

8. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Crl OP No.23752 of 2018 and Crl OP No.10106 of 2019, made the following submissions :-

a. The crux of the allegation is that the Release Deed dated 05.02.1992 is a forged and fabricated document and the defacto complainant has not signed in the said document. The original of this Deed has not been seized by the respondent police and a copy of the document was sent for expert opinion and the expert has declined to give his opinion , since there was no contemporaneous signature of the defacto complainant available for comparison and that the signature cannot be compared with a photo copy of the document. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to collect any material to prove the allegation of forgery and that this ground by itself is enough to quash the proceedings.

b. The defacto complainant has given the complaint after nearly 24 years, alleging that the Release Deed is a forged document and that too after receiving his share. The Defacto complainant could not have claimed any relief before a Civil Court against the accused persons at this length of time, since his claim would have been hopelessly barred by limitation. Such a time barred claim is now sought to be gi