The judgment emphasized the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime, especially related to forgery and transfer of property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.8 of 2020, dated 09.07.2020, on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner and to quash the same.)

This petition is filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.8 and 2020, on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the property originally belong to Kamatchi Gounder. The said Kamatchi Gounder was having two wives. The first wife - Kamayiammal was having three children, Kamatchi, Palanisamy, Seniammal. The said Kamatchi was having a wife-Kanniyammal and three children, viz., Kathiresan, Selvi and Radha. Kamatchi Gounder''s second wife - Solayi was having a son- Chelladurai, and a daughter - Rani. Chelladurai died as a divorcee and without any issues. Chelladurai purchased some properties on 14.12.1981 and on 11.07.1983, the sister of Chelladurai, viz. Rani is the sole legal heir of Chelladurai. Kathiresan-A1 S/o. Kamatchi forged a partition deed and registered the same before the Sub- Registrar office, without the knowledge of Rani, who was the sister of Chelladurai. The children of Kamatchi and Kanniamal, by name, Kathiresan, Selvi, Radha and Palanichamy executed a forged partition deed on 02.12.2019 and registered the same in the Sub Registrar Office as Document No.4270/ 2019 and the document was written by A1. On the basis of the forged partition deed, patta was transferred. Rani filed a suit in O.S.No.184 of 2018, to declare herself as the legal heir of the deceased - Chelladurai and the suit was decreed on 22.07.2019, having the knowledge about the case the Thasildar and the village administrative officer colluded with the other accused transferred the patta from the name of Chelladurai and issued patta in the name of A1.

3. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner herein is A7 and that he is no way connected with the alleged offence. Based on the registered partition deed presented by the first accused and on the recommendation of the village administrative officer, patta was issued in the name of A1 on 03.03.2020. The decree passed in O.S.No. 184 of 2018 2018 on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakottai, was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner was not a respondent in the suit and based on the records placed online, the patta was mutated by the petitioner.

4. It is further stated that on 28.07.2020, the Tahsildar cancelled the patta and brought back the revenue records in the original position. The first accused did not produce any document in respect of O.S.No.184 of 2018. Relying on the document presented by the first accused through online and on the recommendation of the village administrative officer and without any knowledge as to the decree in OS.No.184 of 2018, the petitioner has issued patta, which was now rectified. There is no possibility for the petitioner to conduct any enquiry or to record any evidence. There is no forgery, conspiracy or cheating done by the petitioner. Instead of filing an application for rectification before the Revenue Department, the defacto complainant has filed this F.I,.R, which is not maintainable.

5. On the side of the defacto complainant, it is stated that the petitioner is A7 in the case and only on her recommendation, patta was transferred in the name of A1 to A4 and it is the duty of the petitioner to verify the records and to verify the LR certificate.

6. On the side of the defacto complainant, a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2017-9-SCC-641 (Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Karmur V. State of Gujarat) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-

17. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The Hi