Criminal proceedings cannot pursue allegations of forgery if the accused were not the makers of the documents, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.

ORDER :

L. Victoria Gowri, J.

The petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceedings in CC No.890 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi dated 22.07.2022.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners categorically contended that the final report in CC No.890 of 2022 is an abuse of process of law, where the respondent police has attempted to give a criminal color to a civil dispute. The defacto complainant and accused persons are the legal heirs of one TMK Ettappan Raja. The de facto complainant is the legal heir of the first wife of the TMK Ettappan Raja and all the accused are the legal heirs of the second wife of the TMK Ettappan Raja. On 20.01.1985, three settlement deeds were executed in favour of one Sampath Udhayakumar Pandian, who is the son of TMK Ettappan Raja through his second wife Kamalambigai. Thereafter, the said Sampath Udhayakumar Pandian had executed a will dated 10.05.2006 in favour of the first petitioner herein. The first petitioner is the daughter of the said Sampath Udhayakumar Pandian and the second petitioner is her husband.

3. At the first instance, on the complaint of the defacto complainant, namely, Thangasamy, who is the son of the TMK Ettappan Raja through his first wife, a FIR in Crime No.13 of 2018 came to be registered as against four more persons other than the petitioners herein. Those three persons are also the legal heirs of TMK Ettappan Raja through his second wife, Kamalambigai. A3 is the second wife of Sampath Udhayakumar Pandian and A4 and A5 are the children of said Sampath Udhayakumar Pandian and A6 is son of TMK Ettappan Raja, claiming that the settlement deeds 20.01.1985 and the will dated 10.05.2006 are forged documents. However, after completion of investigation, A3, A4 and A5 were deleted and the final report came to be laid only as against the petitioners herein and A6. It is also understood that during the pendency of investigation, the de facto complainant, Thangasamy had passed away and one Jeyaraman, who is the brother of Thangasamy, has been incorporated by the 1^st respondent police as LW1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no civil case is pending before any Court of law challenging the validity of the aforesaid three settlement deeds as well as the will. Only a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was laid by the deceased Thangasamy as against the petitioners and three others, who has been arrayed as A3 to A5 in the FIR, in OS No.9 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin, which was decreed in favour of the said Thangasamy, who was arrayed as the plaintiff, on 07.06.2019. The final report has been filed claiming that the petitioners herein have utilized the settlement deeds and will, which were claimed to have been forged for the purpose of substantiating their claim before the learned II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin, in OS No.9 of 2018. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner categorically pointed out that no documents were marked by the petitioners herein at any point of time before the learned II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin. Hence, the entire prosecution version could be traced to be false and the same should necessarily be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the registered partition deed was effected as early as in the year 1959 between TMK Ettappan Raja and all his legal heirs, in which the schedule 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the said partition deed were allotted to TMK Ettappan Raja, Thangasamy, Jeyaraman and Sampath Udhayakumar respective