The court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of facts under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records of proceedings pending in C.C.No.23 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi, for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 468 r/w.34 IPC and to quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi.

2. The petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.23 of 2021.

3. The case of the respondent/complainant in C.C.No.23 of 2021 is that the respondent purchased the property in S.Nos.14/2C and 14/2D for a total extent of 2.16 Acres in Kabilakurichi Village, Paramathi Vellore Taluk, Namakkal District, on 28.08.1995, vide registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.816 of 1995, from petitioners 1 to 3. Subsequently, the petitioners 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramathi, with a prayer to declare the sale deed obtained by the respondent on 28.08.1995 as null and void. Pending the suit, the petitioners 1 to 3 executed a sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of 4th petitioner with the help of 7th petitioner-Document Writer and petitioners 5 to 6 who signed the deed as witnesses and the same was registered as Document No.86 of 2020 by the Sub-Registrar, Paramathi, who is arrayed as 8th accused. Thus, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioners, by creating false documents in order to grab the land, have executed a false deed in favour of 4th petitioner. Hence, the respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners 1 to 8 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter in C.C.No.23 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 465, 468 r/w.34 IPC as against petitioners 1 to 6; Sections 465, 468 r/w. 109 IPC as against petitioners 7 and 8.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent/complainant, by impersonating the 1st petitioner namely Marayee, got the sale deed in Document No.816 of 1995 on 28.08.1995 in respect of the complaint mentioned property. Subsequently, this came to the knowledge of the petitioners 1 and 3 and hence, they filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramathi, for declaring the said document in Doc.No.816 of 1995 as null and void. The suit is pending. In these circumstances, the petitioners 1 to 3, due to their financial crisis, executed the sale deed registered as Document No.86 of 2020 on the file of Sub-Registrar''s Office, Paramathi, in favour of 4th petitioner with the help of petitioners 5 and 6 who signed as witness to the document. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent has impersonated the 1st petitioner and has falsely obtained the sale deed in Document No.816 of 1995. Therefore, the petitioners 1 to 3, who are the real owners of the subject property, have every right to sell the property to the 4th petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant has not an affidavit before invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as mandated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava and others v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. The learned counsel contended that, since the petitioners 1 to 3 are the real and absolute owners of the property, no offence is made out. Hence, the learned counsel seeks to quash the private complaint lodged by the respondent.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that the allegations raised by the petitioners are not correct and the respondent purchased the property on 28.08.1995 vide registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.816 of 1995 from petitioners 1 to 3 for a valid consideration and there is no impersonation. Subsequently, the petitioners 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2017 on the fil