The petitioner's role in the conspiracy to commit other offences was prima facie disclosed, and the offence under Section 420 IPC was not made out against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers [ CRL.OP.No.1914/2021]: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in CC.No.597 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode and quash the same.

CRL.OP.No.2235/2021]: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in CC.No.596 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner/Accused No.3.)

1. The above petitions are to quash the final report filed under Sections 120 B, 420. 467, 468, 471, 109 and 447 IPC.

2. It is alleged in the final reports that the petitioner’s father, one Balasumbramani had acquired 81.5 cents by virtue of a partition deed in the year 1997; that he had sold 31.38 cents of land to the de facto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.1914 of 2021 and sold 17.58 cents to the de facto complainant in Crl.OP.No.2235 of 2021; that thereafter, in a conspiracy with the other accused, he had executed a sale deed in favour of his wife A.4. In the said sale deed, the petitioner and her father are shown as vendors; that the petitioner and others had forged the Adangal Register where they had added the name of the petitioner’s father in the column, showing the name of the owner, along with the name of one Chinnaswamy making it appear that they both were the owners of the lands in the said Survey Number; and that the petitioner therefore executed these documents in conspiracy with the other accused and hence, guilty of the offences alleged.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has a right by birth in the property that was allotted in favour of her father in the partition deed. Her father had executed the sale deed by unlawfully selling her share in favour of the de facto complainants. Since the petitioner’s father had not obtained permission from the Court to sell the property belonging to the petitioner, in the year 2004, who was then a minor, the said sale deed is voidable at the instance of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had filed a suit in OS.No.449 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Erode, to set aside the sale deeds executed in the favour of the de facto complainants. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the dispute of a civil nature has been given a criminal colour. Since the sale deed executed by her father in the year 2004 was voidable, she had a right to execute a sale deed and hence, the sale deeds executed in favour of her mother, A.4 and the other accused cannot be said to be a criminal act. The learned counsel relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submitted that even if the petitioner had sold the property by making a false claim of title, she cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned final reports may be quashed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations in the impugned final report attract the offences alleged. The points raised by the petitioners are matters for trial and hence, the quash petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5. The learned senior counsel for the de facto complainants would submit that it is not just a false claim of title by the petitioner, the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that she had to file a suit to set aside the sale deed. In spite of this, she did not wait for the conclusion of the said suit and executed sale deeds in favour of A.4 and other third parties. The petitioner was therefore aware of the acts committed by her father and she had participated in the conspiracy. Since this is a case of conspiracy, the learned senior counsel submitted that this has to be adjudicated only before the Trial Court and hence prayed for dismissal of the quash petitions.

6. This Court finds from a reading