The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence of forgery, there must be a false document or electronic record, and the prosecution must demonstrate the elements of forgery as per the relevant provisions of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.16 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned L.G.II, M.M. Court Allikulam, Chennai.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.16 of 2022, for the offence under Sections 120(B), 419, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C., pending on the file of the learned Land Grabbing II, M.M. Court, Allikulam, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The petitioners herein are A9, A10, A14 and A17. A9 and A14 are the purchasers of the property, A10 is the witness to the document and A17 is the land broker.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that in Survey No.54/1 and 54/2 in respect of Plot No.26A, measuring to an extent of 1200 sq. ft. was purchased by the defacto complainant through the Power Agent called Hema Kumar in the year 1997. Thereafter, A4 has obtained Power of Attorney on 31.10.2002 from some of the co-owners. According to the prosecution, pursuant to the above Power of Attorney, Plot No.26 was changed to 26A and Plot No.28 was changed to 28A and sold it to the 1st and 3rd petitioner, thereby all the persons have been prosecuted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' possess title in pursuant to the final decree proceedings passed in O.S.No.431 of 1955. According to him, Survey Nos.54/1 and 54/2 measuring totally to an extent of 66 cents were allotted to one Selvammal. Selvammal had three children viz. one son and two daughters, and the two daughters have granted Power of Attorney in favour of their brother on 21.08.1992. Pursuant to the same, the property has been sold and the petitioners claim title from that. He further submitted that no documents have been filed on the side of the defacto complainant and even in the revenue records it does not show any of the name of predecessor of defacto complainant. Hence submitted that continuation of prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

5. Despite the service of notice and the name of the defacto complainant printed in the cause list, none represented on her behalf to prosecute the matter.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that according to the prosecution the plot No.26 is changed to 26A and Plot No.28 is changed to 28A and sold the property. Normally, when the final report indicate materials which requires appreciation of evidence, this Court will not interfere, but when the Civil dispute is given a criminal colour, the prosecution cannot be continued.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. This Court perused all the materials placed on record.

8. The very allegation in the final report indicates dispute with regard to the title as rightly pointed out. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the final decree proceedings passed in O.S.No.431 of 1955, the said properties have been allotted to one Selvammal in Survey No.54/1 and 54/ and the legal representatives of Selvammal also have right over the property and A4 obtained Power of Attorney from them. The revenue records and the statement of the Tahsildhar also clearly indicates the Survey Numbers as 54/1 and 54/2. The only allegation of the prosecution is that the plot No.26A and 28A is not found in the revenue records. Now the contention of the prosecution is that 26A and 28A have been created and the properties have been sold fraudulently.

9. It is relevant to note that the original Survey Number of the area is 54/1 and 54/2 which was the subject matter of the final decree proceedings and 66 cents have been allotted to Selvammal as per the final decree proceedings available in the typed set. Merely because some entries are not found in the revenue records, it cannot be the ground to hold that the falsification of records or forgery and such act never amounts to forgery.

10. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Mohammed Ibrahim and oth