The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of conflicting Wills and their implications on property rights, along with the application of relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the same in Cr.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur District.)

Common Order:

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed calling for the records in Cr.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur District and to quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject property was originally owned by one Venkatachalam. He had two daughters viz, Papammal and Kaveriammal and no male issue. He died on 09.08.2006. During his lifetime, he executed a Will, dated 08.06.2005 in favour of his two daughters in respect of his properties. The second respondent/Defacto complainant is only the brother's son of the said Venkatachalam. Even while he was alive, a partition between two daughters happened and accordingly they have been enjoying their respective shares and it is also established in the suit in O.S.No.77 of 2008. Accordingly, the revenue records were mutated and patta was also issued in respect of their respective shares. However, it was shown that during the lifetime of their father, he had executed a Will in favour of the second respondent in respect of the subject property and the same was challenged before the District Munsif Court, Jayamkondam in O.S.No.316 of 2018 in which the second respondent is also one of the parties. Thereafter, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Land Grabbing, District Crime Branch at Ariyalur. Since the second respondent has no proper particulars to change the patta in favour of him in respect of the subject property, the said complaint was closed by the Land Grabbing, District Crime Branch at Ariyalur. Without considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Magistrate issued direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to register an FIR and as such the first respondent registered the present impugned FIR.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that as per the Will executed by the said Venkatachalam, dated 31.08.2005, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.2721 of 2021, enjoyed her share of the property. Thereafter, the said Venkatachalam executed another registered Will dated 06.07.2006 in favour of the second respondent. It is his last Will. Accordingly, the second respondent was issued patta. However, for the very same property, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.2721 of 2021, approached the first respondent and obtained patta only with the intention to grab the entire property. The first accused also colluded with the petitioners and other accused and obtained patta in favour of the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.2721 of 2021. On the strength of the said patta, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.2721 of 2021, executed a settlement deed in favour of her grand son with the help of the second accused. Therefore, all the accused persons committed offences under Sections 120B, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 166A of IPC.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the investigation is under progress. Only because of the interim order passed by this Court, the first respondent cannot complete the investigation in Crime No.9 of 2020.

5. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Ramprakash Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

6. A perusal of FIR revealed that the entire allegations made around the Will executed by one Venkatachalam, dated 08.06.2005 pertaining to the property comprised in Survey No.353-8 to an extent of 0.02.00 Ares 0.05 cents bequeathing the same in favour of the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.2721 of 2021 and the same was registered vide Document No.11BK3 of 2005 on the file of the second accused. There is a special clause i