ORDER :

1. This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 1 of 2021 registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. The petitioners are figuring as Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The case was registered based on the information lodged by the second respondent herein. His case is that the property that is the subject matter of this case belongs to his family absolutely and that it is in their possession and enjoyment. It is covered by patta Nos. 911, 1011, 1041, 1424, 1501 and 968. In order to grab the same, the first petitioner herein had executed a settlement deed dated 14.05.2009 in favour of the second petitioner. It was registered as document No. 716 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office No. II, Cheranmahadevi. The defacto complainant alleges that knowing fully well that the property in question belongs to the defacto complainant's family, the first petitioner had knowingly executed the settlement deed. The other accused are also said to have attested the document with full knowledge of the facts.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the very registration of the FIR is an abuse of legal process and contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Md. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751. He reiterated the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to quash the impugned FIR.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the inherent powers of this Court are not meant to be invoked in a case of this nature. They would submit that it is not as if the first petitioner is having atleast an iota title over the property. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that he is in a position to demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Court that the offending document has been executed by a person, who is totally bereft of any title. According to him, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners' counsel would not have any application because there is not even a bogey of title that can be claimed by the first petitioner. Only if there is a genuine or bona-fide civil dispute, the said decision can be pressed into service. He would further state that if persons not having any title are allowed to execute documents thereby alienating the property belonging to third parties, then, no one will be safe. According to the learned counsel, law cannot be totally divorced from morality. It is true that the defacto complainant can move the civil Court for relief. But such a remedy is rather illusory in practice. The second petitioner will have to incur huge expenditure and also pursue the matter for years together before the civil Court. Therefore, the defacto complainant should not be totally debarred from invoking the process of criminal law. Only if such an approach is adopted by this Court, that would secure the ends of justice, which is the object behind the incorporation of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The decision reported in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2021 SC 1918 was relied upon. In the said case, the following directions have been issued:

“23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/ch