The main legal point established is the reliance on expert examination to determine forgery in land records and the grant of anticipatory bail based on the court's findings.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: C-24AB.For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.181 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.)

Common Order

1. The Court made the following order:- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1, A2 and A4 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC, in Crime No.118 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that the property in survey No.430/19 in Soolakarai village belongs to him ancestrally. But in the Government records, it has been shown as 'sarkar poramboke' vacant land. On 09/02/2018, A1 sold the property to A2. A3 and A3 have created the document stating that the property belonged to A1. The property originally belonged to his father and Saminatha Santhana Chettiar. It was purchased by his grand-father in 1922. After the death of his father, the above said property was inherited by the de-facto complainant. After the death of the grand-father and grand-mother, in the Adangal extract, it has been created by committing forgery. So for the above said letter, he preferred a complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which was forwarded to the police to register a case. On the basis of the above said direction, the case was registered.

3. Now seeking anticipatory bail, A1, A2 and A4 are before this court.

4. Heard both sides.

5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD)No.12862 of 2022 has submitted that he is not-pressing the petition filed by A1. So Crl.OP(MD)No.12862 of 2022 is dismissed as withdawn in respect of the first petitioner/A1. So for A2 consideration is required.

6. Now the allegation against A2 in the complaint is that the A1 created forged records and in turn sold the property to A2, on 09/01/2018. According to A2, the property comprised in survey No.430/19 originally belonged to one Kalimuthu Chettiar. The father of A2 purchased 4-1/2 cents from the above said Kalimuthu Chettiar, in 1968, measuring to an extent of about 3 cents belongs to Sakkayan Chettiar and that was conveyed to Arumugam Chettiar in 1972 by way of sale deed. After the death of Arumugam Chettiar, now the property devolves upon A1 and A2 by way of sale deed. A2 filed a suit in O.S No.152 of 2019 before the Sub Court, Aruppukottai against the Government seeking declaration. So according to the A2, there is title dispute with regard to the property.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A3 would submit that even as per the case of the de-facto complainant, it is a natham poramboke land. Who was in possession and patta was granted by the Government. According to him, only on the basis of the possession, patta and adangal was created.

8. But the case of the de-facto complainant is that by forging the signature, the above said adangal has been created. The concerned Village Administrative Officer has also given a statement to the effect that his signature has been forged in the particular adangal document.

9. On going through the document, it is seen that the above said adangal has been created by doing cut and pasting the original signature and seal of the concerned Village Administrative Officer, who is A4 herein.

10. At the time of hearing, a direction was issued to the concerned Investigating Officer to present before this court to show the original document for sending the same to the Forensic Science Lab for expert examination, so that the truth will be found out.

11. As mentioned earlier, perusal of the disputed document shows that it has been created by the above said process of copying and pasting the original signature and the office seal. More-over, even though the allegation against A1, who alleged to have created the above said bogus document, for which, A2 cannot be held responsible. So this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to 2nd petitioner/A2. Similarly, th