Pending resolution of civil partition suit, criminal proceedings regarding property disputes are unnecessary, with the court prohibiting encumbrance creation based on settlement deeds.

Order :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

Challenging the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee in Crl.M.P.No. 2446 of 2023, dated 22.11.2023, the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial court, the petitioners have filed a petition under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge them from the charges under Sec.465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Sec.109 and 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.09 of 2020. The said petition was dismissed by the trial court stating that as per the final report, there is prima facie materials available to prosecute the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 and hence, the trial court is inclined to discharge them from charges levelled against them. Aggrieved over the said findings, the petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The defacto complainant is the father of the 1^st petitioner, who gave a complaint stating that the 1^st petitioner without any right whatsoever executed the settlement deed dated 04.03.2019 with regard to the property belongs to him as per Koorchhit dated 15.06.1984, thereafter he settled the property in favour of wife on 04.02.2019 and having came to know that this petitioner/A1 executed a settlement deed on 04.02.2019 in favour of his wife, who in turn executed a settlement deed in favour of her husband on 10.04.2019, thereby created forged and fabricated record. Based on the said settlement deed, they have entered into sale deed with a third party. Therefore, the father of 1^st petitioner/accused gave a complaint and based on that complaint, F.I.R. in Crime No.9 of 2020 was registered for an offence under Sec. 465, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. Thereafter, final report was filed and the criminal case was taken on file in C.C.No.220 of 2022 against all the three accused. The 1^st accused is son born to first wife of defacto complainant. The 2^nd petitioner is wife of A1. The 3^rd petitioner is son of A1. Thereafter, they have filed a petition before the trial court to discharge them from the charges stating that they have not committed any forgery or fraudulent document and also challenged the Koorcit, which was relied on by the defacto complainant stating that it was an unregistered document, through which his father is not having absolute right nor entitled to transfer the property including his share. Therefore, he challenged the koorchit as well as right of defacto complainant and prayed to discharge them before the trial court stating that the allegation of forgery and other charges levelled against them without any evidence. But, the said petition was dismissed. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial court.

4. The learned counsel for defacto complainant would submit that the 1^st petitioner and the defacto complainant having long dispute all these days and they were separated from the family. The defacto complainant, after the death of first wife, got second marriage and begotten child, to whom he settled the property long back. Having came to know that he created a forged settlement deed without having any right, since the properties are in possession of his children and other third party more than a decade. Apart from that, he has also executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife and she in turn executed a settlement deed in favour of petitioner with an intention to cause encumbrance and fabricated the records to defraud his legitimate right over the property. Since he insisted to go for trial, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case as no merit.

5. The 1st petitioner and defacto complainant ordered to appear before this court and they were appeared. The 1st petitioner would submit that his father has not given any share though he is the eldest son bo