The court emphasized the limitations of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and highlighted that the High Court cannot delve into the disputed question of facts while considering the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.25 of 2019, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.25 of 2019, pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive trial of Land Grabbing cases, Madurai and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the fifth accused in C.C.No.25 of 2019, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive trial of Land Grabbing cases, Madurai. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, F.I.R. came to be registered in Cr.No.55 of 2017 on 23.06.2017 against eight persons for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 471 and 120(b) I.P.C. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has laid the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dated 27.11.2017 against five persons including the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 467, 468, 406 and 420 I.P.C., and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.25 of 2019 and the same is pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive trial of Land Grabbing cases, Madurai.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant has purchased two properties at Ponmeni Village, Madurai South Taluk, vide document Nos.4613 and 4614 of 1994 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property, that the second respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as hand loan from her husband's friend Manoharan – first accused, for which, the second respondent had given the original sale deeds as security, that the hand loan was settled by the second respondent within two months, that since the second respondent with her husband moved to her native place due to nature of work allotted to her husband, they made a request to the first accused to take care of the property and to see the prosperous buyers to sell the said property, that the original sale deeds which were handed over to the first accused were not returned to the second respondent, that the first accused within three months, in collusion with the third accused Subramani had created a power of attorney deed, dated 07.03.1995 as if the same was executed by the second respondent in favour of the first accused, that thereafter they have also created two sale deeds dated 19.05.1995 as if the second respondent had executed two sale deeds in favour of the second accused Vadivammal, that the accused 1 and 3 had subscribed their signatures as witnesses to the said documents, that the second accused has then executed a Will dated 23.06.1995, in favour of her daughter-in-law Malaimani – fourth accused, that the fourth accused had executed a power of attorney deed dated 09.12.2002 in favour of one Balu @ Baluchamy, that the petitioner/fifth accused had subscribed his signature as a witness to the said power deed, that subsequently they had sold the property to third parties and thereby they had obtained unlawful gain, that all the accused had conspired together and impersonated the second respondent and forged her signatures and fabricated the documents and that thereby they had committed the offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 467, 468, 406 and 420 I.P.C.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent has laid the final report without considering the fact that the very same complaint, which was given by the second respondent dated 26.02.2016 was closed as no offence was made out, that there is no criminal overt act attributed against the petitioner, that there are no allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint given by the second respondent, that the first respondent, without considering the fact that the petitioner is only an attesting witness in the power deed