JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the dismissal order in Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2015, dated 03.08.2016, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, filed against the order in Cr.M.P.No.434 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur and set aside the same.

1. The State has filed this Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2015, confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, discharging the accused in C.C.No.53 of 2013.

2. The petitioner herein registered F.I.R. in Crime No.152 of 2012 based on the complaint, dated 07.10.2012, given by one M.Gopalakrishnan. The content of the F.I.R. in nutshell is that the land measuring an extent of 10 Acres and 88 Cents in S.F.No.21 of Kavattaiyanpatti Village belongs to Elanthaikarai Ayyanar Temple and it is the property of the Village people consisting of three major communities, viz., Ambalam [Kallar], Konar [Yadhavar] and Adi- Dravidar. Respondents 1 to 9 herein have conspired to grab the Village land, had created sale deed executed by A1 to A3, in the capacity as Managers of the Village common property and A4 to A6 as the legal heirs of A1 to A3, sold the property to A9 through his Power Agent A8. Though the market value of the property was more than Rs.1.5 Crores, the transfer of property was for a sale consideration of Rs.1,57,800/-.

3. The 10th respondent herein lodged the complaint alleging act of fabricating false document, forgery, cheating and conspiracy and requested the Police to investigate. Accordingly, the petitioner herein registered a case in Crime No.152 of 2012, took up investigation and filed a final report on 08.05.2013 stating that A1 to A9 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 420 of I.P.C.

4. On filing the final report, before framing the charges, A1 to A9 had filed a Petition in Cr.M.P.No.434 of 2015 to discharge them on the ground that there is no material to proceed against them for the alleged offences. It was contended that there is no prima facie evidence for the offence of criminal conspiracy, forgery and cheating in respect of the subject properties connected with this case. The complaint given by a stranger to the Village, alleging that the Village Temple property has been sold to A9, has been taken up for investigation and final report has been filed for the said offences, though the dispute at the most related to title over immovable property and purely a dispute civil in nature. A1 to A3, being the Ambalakarars of the Village and administering the festival of the Temple, had lawfully sold the property for the betterment of the Temple administration while the members of the other communities or Villagers of Kavattaiyanpatti had no grievance in alienating the property. While so, the de-facto complainant [10th respondent herein] has no locus to maintain the criminal prosecution being an outsider to the Village.

5. The State has filed counter and objected the discharge petition. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the petition and discharged the accused holding that the dispute is purely civil in nature and therefore, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported in 1988 (1) SCC 692, held that though the sale deed executed by A1 to A6 in favour of A9 is not by the person, who has right to alienate, but the dispute can be agitated only through suit by the Villagers of Kavattaiyanpatti declaring their title and not through the criminal case initiated by a stranger to the Village.

6. Regarding the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate has considered the entries in 'A' Register and Patta for the said property, which discloses that S.No.21 of Kava