JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.3380, 19142 & 19093 of 2015: Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records related to C.C.No.960 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and quash the same in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

1. All the three criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to quash the private complaint in C.C.No.960 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. Since the issues involved in all the criminal original petitions are one and the same, all the Criminal Original Petitions are heard together and disposed of by means of this Common Order.

2. Totally there are five accused in this case and the petitioners herein are arrayed as A1, A2 and A5, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 466 and 468 of IPC.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these criminal original petitions are as follows:

(i) The respondent/complainant herein claims to be the co-owner of the property along with one Mrs.Sivajothi Ammal measuring an extent of 1.70 acre under various survey numbers at Vengambakkam village, Tambaram. Earlier, the respondent is said to have executed a Power of Attorney deed on 19.02.1992, in favour of one Mr.Subarayan, who is said to be a friend of A2, authorising him to sell an extent of 1.64 cents of land.

(ii) By virtue of the said power of attorney, the said Subarayan sold the property in favour of 13 persons by means of registered sale deeds on 20.02.1992 and 02.03.1992 respectively. The purchasers in turn executed a power of attorney deed in favour of A3 and A4 to sell the property, and on various dates in March, April and May, 1999, A1 has purchased the disputed property from them.

(iii) Subsequent to the alienation of the property by Mr.Subarayan, the respondent cancelled the power of attorney executed in favour of Mr.Subarayan on 16.04.1992 and she filed a suit for permanent injunction against the power agent Mr.Subarayan in O.S.No.1843 of 1992 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee and obtained an exparte decree in her favour.

(iv) After purchase of the property by A1, when the respondent attempted to disturb his possession, A1 filed a suit in O.S.No.164 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram for permanent injunction and after a full fledged trial, the suit was decreed in favour of A1. Against the said decree and judgment, the respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram and the same was dismissed on 22.11.2010. Against the said judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010, the respondent filed a second appeal in S.A.No.1084 of 2014, before this Court and this Court by Judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014, dismissed the second appeal.

(v) After the dismissal of the second appeal, the present private complaint has been filed by the respondent, alleging that, A2 herein has only instigated the respondent and her husband to execute the power of attorney deed in favour of Mr.Subarayan, wherein, she has executed the power only to an extent of 1.62 cents of land, however, the power agent Mr.Subarayan sold away the entire property of 1.70 acre. That apart, the sale consideration was also not paid to her. In the above circumstance, respondent canceled the power of attorney deed dated 16.04.1992, and the suit filed by the respondent against the power agent Mr.Subarayan was decreed in her favour. Despite the same, 13 persons purchased the property and they executed a power of attorney deeds in favour of A3 and A4 to sell the property. From A3 and A4, A1 has purchased the entire property. According to the respondent, the accused have thereby cheated the respondent/complainant. Hence a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the respondent and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused.

4. Now to quash the sa