The court held that criminal proceedings should not be misused for civil disputes, emphasizing the need for caution to prevent abuse of process.

ORDER :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 736 of 2022 registered by the first respondent police.

2(i). The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant is the brother of first accused by name Prem Kumar. The first accused had settled along with his wife in United Kingdom (London). While being so, on 28.01.2022, the father of the first accused and the second respondent/defacto complainant died intestate, leaving behind them as his legal heirs. On 01.02.2022, the first accused has filed an on-line application seeking issuance of legal heirship certificate in the name of the second respondent/defacto complainant without his consent that too by forging his signature.

2(ii) The further case of the prosecution is that on receipt of such application, the Revenue Officials have visited the second respondent's/defacto complainant's house for field verification on 07.02.2022. Thereafter, the second respondent/defacto complainant came to understand that his signature was forged and fraudulently applied for legal heirship certificate.

2(iii) It is also the case of the prosecution that the first accused has come from London and obtained legal heirship certificate by furnishing false documents i.e., Pancard, Address Proof from the Taluk Office, Purasawalkam. The third accused/petitioner herein has facilitated the first accused/brother of the second respondent/defacto complainant to commit the offence. Hence, the second respondent/ defacto complainant has lodged a complaint before the respondent police against the petitioner and others.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/ defacto complainant, the first respondent has registered an FIR against the petitioner and others in Cr.No.736 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of IPC and C.S.R.No.156 of 2022 was issued to the second respondent/defacto complainant.

4(i). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no specific overt act as against the petitioner, except his name in the FIR. Since he is the family member of the first accused, he has been falsely implicated in this case and as far as his daughter/A2 and son-in-law/A1 are concerned, at the time of occurrence they were in London.

4(ii) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 11.08.2021, the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint before the CCB-1, Chennai as against the second respondent/defacto complainant and one Perumal for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 120B of IPC in Cr.No.158 of 2021and the same is pending investigation. He further submits that aggrieved over the same, the defacto complainant has lodged the present complaint before the respondent police implicating the petitioner to wreck vengeance upon the petitioner. Further, he states that there is no material evidence to prove the commission of any of the offences made against the petitioner in the FIR and hence, the same is liable to be quashed as against the petitioner.

4(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that later the first accused/brother of the second respondent has filed a fresh application in his name and obtained legal heirship certificate by furnishing all the required documents. The application which was allegedly filed by the first accused was not acted upon. Even assuming that the said application was considered and the petitioner was issued legal heirship certificate for the demise of their father Perumal, the Revenue Officials issued legal heir ship consisting of both the first accused and the second respondent herein as his legalheirs. In pursuance to issuance of legal heirship certificate, it was not used for any purpose.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2024 SCC on-line SCC 58 rendered in Mariam Fasihuddin and another Vs. State by Adugo