The main legal point established is the need for a fair and thorough investigation in cases involving property disputes and allegations of fraudulent activities.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No. 211 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District and quash the FIR in Crime No. 211 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District as against the above petitioners/accused No.4 & 5.)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 211 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

2. According to the petitioners the properties comprised in S.No.113/2 of Sankaraperi Village, Tuticorin District to an extent of 1 acre 30 cents originally belonged to one Gnanami Nadar and after his demise the property devolved to his son namely Samuel Nadar who is the father of the defacto complainant and the above said Samuel Nadar died on 07.03.1986 leaving behind the second respondent and his brothers as his legal heirs. The above said Samuel had purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1965 and thereafter it was under their enjoyment and possession. The first accused who is having the same identical name of the father of the second respondent has created a general Power of Attorney stating that it was his ancestral property and has derived title through patta bearing Patta No.503 and on the strength of the patta the first accused created a general Power of Attorney vide Doc. No.678/2018 dated 23.03.2018 for the above said property in favour of the second accused. The second accused on the strength of the general Power of Attorney has divided the land into plots and sold the plots to A3 to A5. Accordingly the fifth accused/second petitioner has purchased land to an extent of 10.68 cents through a registered sale deed vide document No.645/2018 dated 06.07.2018 and the fourth accused/first petitioner has purchased a land to an extent of 10.11 cents through a registered sale deed vide Document No.646/2018 dated 06.07.2018 and thereafter they are in enjoyment and possession of the property. The second respondent later gaining the knowledge has lodged complaint before the first respondent police and the first respondent has registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.211 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420,465,467,468 of IPC and the same is pending investigation. The above said First Information Report registered as against the petitioners is erroneous and do not have any iota to proceed against the petitioners and hence the First Information Report is liable to quashed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent filed counter stating that the petitioners are wife and son of Tamilarasan respectively who was the incumbent Sub Registrar, Pudur, Thoothukudi District at the time of fraudulent registration and he was the master mind of the entire crime episode. The petitioners and other conspired together and made fraudulent document with an intention to grab the properties of family of the second respondent. The property in S.No. 113/2 measuring to an extent of 1.30 acres situated in Sankaraperi Village, Thoothukudi Taluk belong to the father of G.Samuel Nadar through a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1965 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the demise of his father his legal heir inherited the property by succession and sisters Dhanapackiyam, Saroja and Selvarani executed a release deed dated 10.07.1981 and 28.04.1980 respectively in favour of their brother. Thereafter partition suit was filed in O.S.No.53 0f 1995 before the Sub Court, Thoothukudi and the same was decreed in their favour. Thereafter properties were partitioned. However during the UDR the name of the Gnanamuthu was mistakenly mentioned as Gnanamani but the respondent did not notice the same. Infact after the death of his father patta was not changed.

4. T