The judgment emphasized the legal principle that the execution of a document claiming ownership is distinct from executing a document by impersonating the owner, highlighting the need for intention to cause belief in the falsity of the document.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in pursuant to case in C.C.No.177 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Omalur.

2. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners (A1 to A6, A9 & A10) and two others (A7 & A8), for offence under Sections 463, 464, 471, 294(b), 323 & 506(ii) of IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, which was taken on file as C.C.No.177 of 2018, against which, the present Criminal Original Petition.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioners are referred to as accused, as per their rank in the complaint in C.C.No.177 of 2018.

4. The gist of the case is that the respondent’s father Sithan was having property in patta No.276 in survey No.52/6E to the extent of 0.22.50 hectare and property in survey No.52/8C to the extent of 0.4.50 hectare of agricultural lands. After the death of his father in the year 2000, the respondent, his brother and his sister were jointly enjoying the said property. Adjacent to the above said property, the 1st petitioner is having agricultural lands in survey Nos.52/6D, 52/6D, 52/6J, 52/8B, 52/6F, 52/6I, 52/8D, 52/10, 52/6H, 52/6G, 52/4 and 52/7. On the eastern side of the agricultural lands of the 2nd respondent, the 1st petitioner used to approach his lands from the 40 feet panchayat road. The petitioners 1 to 4 can approach their lands through panchayat road on eastern, western and northern side. On 08.07.2015, the 1st petitioner claimed that he has got right of way through the respondent’s land, which was objected by the respondent. During conversation with the 1st petitioner, the respondent finding that a document has been created claiming right of way through the property of the respondent, had filed objection petition with the Sub Registrar Office, Omalur on 08.07.2015. Later, the respondent came to know that by document No.5840 of 2014, the petitioners 1 and 2 executed a settlement deed in favour of their son Balakrishnan. In the settlement deed, the right of way in the above said property of the respondent in survey Nos.52/8E, 52/6E, 52/8C was created.

5. On 09.11.2015, the respondent lodged a complaint to the District Registrar, Salem, District Collector, Salem and to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Salem to cancel the document No.5840 of 2014. On the complaint of the respondent, enquiry conducted by the Inspector of Police, Omalur. During enquiry, the petitioners 1 and 2 produced document No.8784 of 2015 informing that the settlement deed in document No.5839 of 2014 was cancelled. Likewise through the document No.8783 of 2015, a settlement document No.5840 of 2014 was also cancelled. On 20.07.2016, A3, A4, A9 and A10 trespassed into the respondent’s land using a tractor. When the same was questioned by the respondent, he was pushed down, threatened and assaulted. Thereafter, the family members of the respondent and neighbours rescued him. The respondent lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station, Salem. The Inspector of Police failed to entertain the complaint of the respondent, for the reason, that it is a civil dispute and directed the 2nd respondent to approach the civil Court. In this case, A7 and A8 are the document writers and A5 and A6 are witnesses to the documents. A settlement deed was executed by A1 and A2 in favour of A3, in turn A3 further settled the property in favour of A4 vide document No.169 of 2016. In this document, 10 feet common pathway through the respondent’s land was mentioned and the petitioners are now attempting to create a right of way.

6. The Registration Authorities failed to follow the circular No.20564/C1/2007 of the Inspector General of Registration and registered the forged docum