The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles in determining the existence of a prima facie case and the absence of grave suspicion against the accused in framing charges.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Both the Criminal Revision Cases had been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to set aside the order of the learned Special Judge, Land Grabbing Court II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai 600 003, dated 11.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2022 in C.C.No.14 of 2021 by allowing the revision.)

Common Order:

1.Both the Criminal Revision Cases have been filed against the impugned order dated 11.11.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2022 in C.C.No.14 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Court II Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai and to discharge the petitioners from the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2021.

2. Since the issues involved in both the Criminal Revisiions are arising out of C.C.No.31 of 2022, both the appeals have been heard together and disposed off by this Common Order.

3. The fact of the case is that the defacto complainant claims that the property in Paimash No.366/1, T.S.No.88, Reddy 1st street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai, to an extent of 16,989 sq.ft., along with some other properties originally belonged to one Mr.K.Govindha Reddiar, S/o. Kandhappa Reddiar, which he inherited in the capacity of a legal heir. After the death of said Mr.K.Govindha Reddiar, his legal heirs Mr. Loganatha Reddiar, Krishna Reddiar, Balu Reddiar and Venu Reddiar, were enjoying the properties jointly. After the death of the aforesaid persons, the property devolved on the defacto complainant, who is the legal heir of his paternal uncles Krishna Reddiar, Balu Reddiar and Venu Reddiar and they are enjoying the same jointly. The defacto complainant is the son of Loganathan Reddiar. While so, Sivaraj,S/o.Varadha Reddiar, Kumar, S/o.Kannaiah and V.Anandan s/o.Venu Reddiar, who are all his neighbours with the intention to grab the property conspired together and involved in illegal activities. They dumped sand in the said property and put up fence and also removed the boundary stone laid by the Government Surveyor and also attempted to grab the property. A complaint in this regard has been lodged before J3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai, which was registered in CSR No.641 of 2014, dated 19.08.2014. In the course of enquiry the aforesaid persons assured to demarcate the property with the aid of land surveyor and will not involve in any such act with regard to the property. But, again they dumped the sand and put up fence and took possession of the said property, for which, Sivaraj, Kumar and V.Anandan created several documents with an intention to grab the property from them and also attempted to sell the property to some third parties. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent police registered a case and investigated the matter by enquiring the witnesses, recording their statements and after investigation, filed final report for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 489 r/w.34 of IPC and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.14 of 2021 by the learned Special Judge, Land Grabbing Court II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai. In which, the petitioners in both the revision petitions filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2022 to discharge them from the criminal proceedings and the same was dismissed by the learned judge on 11.11.2022. Against which, the 2nd petitioner/A2 filed Crl.R.C.No.259 of 2023 and the petitioners 1, 3 to 6 filed Crl.R.C.No.260 of 2023 before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider the fact that no witnesses in their statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C spoke about the document said to be forged by the petitioners. Further, the prosecution also not specifically stated as to which document had been forged by the petitioners. Apart from this, the petitioners had already filed a suit in C.S.No. 182 of 2019 against the 2nd respondent herein for declaratory relief in support of the very same subject property before this Court. In the above said Civil Suit, the petitioners had also