The main legal point established in the judgment is that a criminal complaint can be quashed if there is no prima facie case for the alleged offenses and if the disputed document is already relied upon in a civil suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to C.C.No.256 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore and quash the same.)

1. This petition is to quash the complaint given by Mr.S.Sathiya Narayanan @ Vijayakumar against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners herein in order to cheat have preferred a forged sale agreement as if his late wife Gayathiri has signed in the said sale agreement. Whereas infact, Gayathiri and the petitioners herein entered into a sale agreement in respect of the property which stood in the name of the father, when she needs money to take care of her health. After death of Gayathiri, in order to grab the property, the original sale deed executed by her does not substituted by a forged document and based on the said document, the property was tried to be grabbed and on the basis of the forged alleged sale agreement, notice was sent by these petitioners calling upon the respondent to act upon the said agreement and execute the sale deed receiving the balance sale consideration.

2. It is contended in the complaint that the photocopy of the socalled sale agreement was sent to the Forensic Science Lab for test and Report has been obtained stating that the signature of Gayathiri does not tally with the admitted signature of Gayathiri. However, the disputed document being a photocopy, unless and until the original is produced, the final opinion cannot be given. Hence, in the complaint it is alleged that the petitioners herein have dishonestly induced the complainant to come forward to execute the sale deed with the help of the fraudulently created sale agreement. Hence, offences under Sections 420, 415, 464, 465 and 471 of IPC are made out.

3. In the quash petition, the petitioners contended that Gayathiri the wife of the defacto complainant/respondent was suffering from blood cancer and she was admitted in G.Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore for her treatment. In order to meet out the medical expenses, half of the undivided share in the property was agreed to be sold for consideration of Rs.17,60,000/- and part sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- was remitted into the Joint Bank Account of Gayathiri and her husband Sathiya Narayanan, which was withdrawn and utilised for the medical expenses. However, Gayathiri succumbed to death on 02.07.2016 leaving behind the respondent and minor children. In the said circumstances, to complete the sale agreement, an attempt was made by the petitioners and they are ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,60,000/- and call upon the respondent/complainant to execute the sale deed. Once the respondent received the notice, he has invented reason to breach the agreement and cheat the petitioners for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- received towards sale consideration.

4. In the said circumstances, a civil Suit in O.S.No.51 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri for refund of advance money has been filed and the respondent/defacto complainant has filed a written statement and the matter is pending for trial. While so, the present private complaint alleging cheat and forgery is totally unsustainable and malicious prosecution to avoid refund of money received by the respondent being a vexatious litigation. The petitioners seek to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the complaint.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defacto complainant submitted that when there is a prima facie case made out for forging the document and attempt to cheat, as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and otheres reported in [1992 SCC (Cri) 426], First Information Report cannot be quashed and the parties have to face the trial. Reading out the opinion given by the expert engaged by the respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent