The validity of documents, probative value, and admissibility of documents cannot be examined at the stage of framing charges and can be addressed during trial. The defense taken by the accused cannot be considered at the stage of framing charges.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to the order made in Crl.M.P.No.4384 of 2020 in C.C.No.5108 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 600008 dated 13.09.2021 and set aside the same.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking to set aside order made in Crl.M.P.No.4384 of 2020 in C.C.No.5108 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 600008 dated 13.09.2021.

2. The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.322 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 447 read with 120(B) IPC against the petitioners based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant. The respondent police after investigation laid charge sheet before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.5108 of 2016 and during pendency of the Calender Case, the petitioners herein had filed a petition before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge them from the above said case. The learned Magistrate after giving opportunity to both the parties and considering the materials, dismissed the petition and declined to discharge them from the case. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed the present revision before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the case of the complainant is that the defacto complainant and his wife, his sons and daughters-in-law have purchased the immovable property of vacant land in Old S.No.20/2A Koyambedu Village No.106, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District, divided into Plot Nos.1 to 10 under various sale deeds in the year 1993 and 1994, from 10 person out of 10 sale deeds. Further, he would submit that the stand of the prosecution is that the land comprising in S.No.20/2A, Koyambedu Village was grabbed by the petitioners. Therefore, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the above said offences. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that according to the “A” Register of Koyambedu dated 31.10.1962, Koyambedu Village is an “inam land”. The survey number (field number) of Koyambedu Vilage was 20. Subsequently, the said survey number 20 was further divided into 20/1, 20/2, 20/3, 20/4. Survey No.20/1 is referred as Canal; Survey No.20/2 contained the lands measuring 56 cents; Survey No.20/3 contained land measuring 58 cents and Survey No.20/4 contained land measuring to the total extent of 18 cents and all these lands except S.No.20/1 Canal are totally measuring to an extent 1.32 Acres, all these lands are referred to in the “A” Register as Grama Mirasudhar Gramathaar. A forged amended “A” Register of No.106 Koyambedu Village dated 01.06.1973 was manipulated and prepared by the defacto complainant Dr.Soundarapandian wherein, it was conveniently stated that S.No.20/2 measuring to an extent of 1.32 acres stood in the name of Sundararaja Mudaliar and the same was used by the said Dr.Soundarapandian in the civil suit also. Further he would submit that in the notification for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the land acquisition Act issued in G.O.R.No.1852 Labour (Housing) Department dated 09.09.1971 published in the Government Gazette of Tamilnadu on 06.10.1971, the lands comprised in S.No.20/2 measuring to an extent of 1.32 acres stood in the name of “Grama Mirasudar”. That apart, in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued in G.O.Ms.No.890 Labour, Employment and Housing (housing) dated 21.09.1974, published in the Government Gazette of Tamil Nadu on 25.09.1974, the lands comprised in Survey No.20/2 measuring to an extent of 1.32 acres stood in the name of “Grama Mirasudhar”. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the proceeding for withdrawal from acquisition of land