The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not quash proceedings based on the validity of evidence at the Section 482 Cr.P.C stage, and the allegations in the complaint form the basis for the offenses alleged.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.262 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli and quash the same against the petitioners.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.262 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli, as against the petitioners.

2. There are totally 10 accused, in which the petitioner are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners are husband and wife and they were implicated on the complaint lodged by the second respondent in Crime No.17 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 120(b), 465, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of I.P.C alleging that the petitioners advertised that they have developed a layout in the name and style of 'Shifa Golden City' for the land comprised in Survey Nos.9 and 11 admeasuring 12.29 acres and 2.85 acres situated in Konganthanparai Village, Tirunelveli. One Annamalai had purchased a plot bearing No.E7 and he had given power of attorney to one Abdul Karim. The second respondent purchased the said plot by a registered sale deed, dated 10.07.2009 and constructed a house and residing there. In the year 2010, the petitioners approached the second respondent and informed that certain persons have filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the civil Court and to conduct the trial, they obtained his signature. However, later the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the said property belonged to the plaintiff and ordered recovery of the suit property. Thereafter, the second respondent came to know that the said property has been purchased by the plaintiff's Mandagapadi in the year 1985 and as such the petitioners have committed the offence of forgery and cheating.

3. Whereas, the case of the petitioners is that they promoted a company in the name and style 'Shifa Housing Private Limited' in Tirunelveli for development of real estate. They developed the project in the name of 'Shifa Golden City' and it spreads around 22 acres. They layout the same and divided into 333 house plots, in which already 126 plots have already sold out. Almost all the purchasers have constructed their house and living there peacefully. The second respondent did not purchase the plot No.E7 directly from the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the statement of witnesses annexed to the chargesheet would not disclose any commission of offence of either forgery or cheating. They purchased the property comprised in Survey No.9 to an extent of 15.35 acres, the property comprised in Survey No.10 to an extent of 2.02 acres and the property comprised in Survey No.11 to an extent of 5.5 acres out of the total extent of 17.14 acres by three separate sale deeds from the original owner. Thereafter, in the year 2010, one Kuttalammal Religious and Charitable Trust filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2020 before the District Court, Tirunelveli, claiming title in respect of the property in Survey No.9 to an extent of 12.29 acres and Survey No.11 to an extent of 2.85 acres and also prayed for recovery of possession. After contest, the said suit was decreed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal suit in A.S(MD)No.84 of 2016 on the file of this Court and this Court stayed all further proceedings in the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.117 of 2020 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli and the said appeal suit is pending. Therefore, all the disputes raised in the present charge-sheet are civil in nature and the second respondent attempted to give criminal colour for the civil dispute and finally achieved by filing final report for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 120(b), 465, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of I.P.C.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the disputed properties are pa