ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. pleased to call for the records and quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No. 515/2019 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC on the file of the 1st respondent police.

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No. 515 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C, alleging that on the very same set of facts, the defacto complainant had already initiated a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and same is pending on being taken cognizance by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Sriperumbudur in C.C.No. 176/2015.

2. In the petition it is contended that, suppressing the pendency of the private complaint and without any new facts or material evidence, the complaint dated 11.11.2019 to the police is lodged and same has been registered and taken up for investigation in Crime No. 515 of 2019. The subsequent complaint to the police for the same set of facts while the private complaint in C.C.No. 176 of 2015 is pending amounts to forum shopping.

3. It is contended, that in respect of the property admeasuring 3.79 acres at Numbal Village, Poonamallee Taluk, a Civil Suit in O.S.No. 131 of 2014 is pending before the learned District Munsif Court, Poonamallee and the Probate petition in the High Court with an attempt to derive title through the Will of one Alamelu Ammal is pending. While so, without title, the defacto complainant is attempting to perfect his title through frivolous prosecutions.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Sardool Singh and Another vs. Nasib Kaur, 1987 (Supp) SCC 146, M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana and Others, MANU/SC/1446/2019, Motilal Songara vs. Prem Prakash, 2013 (3) SCC (Cri) 872, Paamjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2013 (11) SCC 673 and Kapil Agarwal and Others vs. Sanjay Sharma, 2021 (5) SCC 524 submitted that, the real dispute is between relatives in respect of the properties held by late Alamelu Ammal who died on 10/06/2011. She has executed a Will in respect of her properties. Based on the Will dated 29.01.2010, the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant claims right over the property of Alamelu Ammal. Whereas, the petitioner / accused based on the Will dated 21.06.2004 claiming right. Both the parties have filed petition to probate their respective Will. These petitions are converted into Testamentary Original Suits (TOS) in view of the caveat. Thus, primarily the dispute is civil in nature. Parties have already approached the Civil Court for remedy. Beside for the same set of fact alleging that the accused had settled the property of the partnership firm namely Alamelu Industries in favour of his wife on 23.06.2014 as if the Alamelu Industries is his proprietary concern and the property belongs to him. In his private complaint he has specifically alleged that to usurp the property, the accused has fabricated an antedated document (Retirement Deed from the partnership firm dated 31.12.1993) by forging the signatures of Late Mrs. Alamelu Ammal, so as to falsely portray himself as the sole owner of the property. With these allegations, the private complaint in C.C. No. 176 of 2015 is pending before the Trial Court.

5. Further, in the said private complaint, the complainant filed an application in C.M.P.No. 1415 of 2016 to direct the accused/the petitioner herein for production of original retirement deed and the dissolution deed dated 04.11.1992 and 31.12.1993 respectively and C.M.P.No. 1910 of 2016 to send the photocopy of the dissolution deed for comparison and opinion of the Handwriting Expert. Both these petitions were dismissed by the trial Court assigning valid reasons. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred Crl.O.P.No. 26565 of 2016 and Crl.R.