Civil disputes concerning property rights should be resolved exclusively through civil courts and cannot be pursued via criminal complaint processes.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 583 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, at Chengalpet.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent owned a property comprised in S.Nos.388/13 (part), 388/10 and 388/14 along with 1/4th Part well situated at Kayarambedu Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. It was acquired by the second respondent through a Will dated 17.08.1989 registered as Doc.no.76 of 1989 executed by one Dhanammal. She died on 07.10.1999 and after her demise, the second respondent became the absolute owner of the said property. Thereafter, she also mutated the records in her favour. Thereafter, the second respondent settled the said property in favour of her son, namely, Ravichandran vide Settlement deed dated 20.07.2015 registered as document no.8770 of 2015. Thereafter, the said Ravichandran was thwarted by the accused and on compulsion, her signature was obtained and a Power of Attroney got executed in favour of the first accused on 01.08.2016 and the same was kept pending as Pending document no.510 of 2016. On the very same day, the Power holder namely the first accused had executed sale deeds in favour of the second accused, who is none other than one of the partners of M/s.Krishna Estate, in which the first accused is also one of the partners. Subsequently, on 08.08.2016, both the documents got registered on 10.08.2016. The said Ravichandran cancelled the Power of Attorney by cancelling the Power of Attorney document registered vide document no.8200 of 2016. In turn, on 31.08.2016, once again the said Ravichandran executed a settlement deed in favour of the second respondent registered as document no.5961 of 2016. Hence, the complaint.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent did not take any action and as such, the second respondent approached this Court and only after a direction, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime no.435 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 406 , 415, 420, 463, 468 and 470 of IPC. However, after investigation, the FIR was closed and a closure report was also filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet. On receipt of the referred charge sheet notice, the second respondent filed a protest petition and the same was treated as private complaint. After recording the sworn statement and considering the materials of the protest petition filed by the second respondent, the trial Court had taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 & A2. The second respondent has no locus to lodge any compliant since it was her son who had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first petitioner on 01.08.2016 and not her. In turn, the first petitioner had executed the sale deed in favour of the second petitioner on 01.08.2016. After having been registered vide document nos.8065, 8066 & 8067 of 2017, the son of the second respondent cancelled the Power of Attorney by Cancellation Deed dated 10.08.2016, registered vide document no.8200 of 2016. Thereafter, on 31.08.2016, the son of the second respondent had executed Settlement Deed in favour of the second respondent and registered vide document no.5961 of 2016. Subsequently, the second respondent lodged a compliant and the same was closed as a mistake of fact on the ground that all the allegations are civil in nature. In fact, the sale deed