ORDER

The present criminal original petition is filed seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:

The defacto complainant Komalavalli, is a resident of Thulasiyapuram Colony, Thanjavur. She purchased a land in Survey No. 48/10, Plot No.32 measuring 2450 sq.ft. from one Parvathi(A1), W/o.Ganesha Pallundar, through a registered sale deed, dated 05.06.1985. She also took possession of the said property and obtained a patta in her favour. However, the first accused Parvathi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her son Senthilnathan(A2) in respect of her properties including the property sold in favour of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the said Senthilnathan sold all the properties in favour of one Tamilselvi (A3), (since deceased) through a registered sale deed dated 12.11.2004 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,94,400/-. The contention of the defacto complainant is that the accused 1 to 5 had conspired with each other to grab her property and therefore, she lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Thanjavur, which was registered as FIR in Crime No.32 of 2014. The Inspector of police, after conducting investigation, laid a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur in C.C.No.19 of 2020 (renumbered as C.C.No.376 of 2022). The present petition is filed by the accused 4 and 5, namely, K.M.Ravinthar and R.Aswini, seeking to quash the final report filed by the concerned police.

3. Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that Tamil Selvi (A3) is a bona fide purchaser for value and that the petitioners were not aware of the earlier sale made in favour of the defacto complainant by A1. He would also contend that after the death of Tamil Selvi (A3), A4 and A5 became entitled to the property bearing plot No.32 and they cannot be charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B), 423, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. He also relied on the decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929 and contended that the criminal proceedings should not be misused for settling scores or pressurising parties to settle civil disputes and that the purchasers of the property cannot be made as co-accused. He would also contend that the petitioners are not the purchasers of the property and they became entitled to plot No.32 on the death of Tamilselvi and they have not fabricated any document as alleged by the prosecution.

4. Per contra, Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would contend that the police after conducting proper investigation had laid a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur. There is no good ground to quash the entire case.

5. Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)

appearing for the first respondent contended that the case is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, since an order of stay was granted by this Court.

6. At the outset, it may be observed that the sale made in favour of the defacto complainant is of the year 1985. However, the first accused had executed a power of attorney in the year 2003 in favour of her own son Senthilnathan in respect of all her properties including the property sold in favour of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant's plot number is 32 measuring 2450 sq ft. Subsequently, A2 sold all his properties in favour of the third accused Tamilselvi, (since deceased) on 12.11.2004. The petitioners are husband and daughter of the said Tamilselvi. They became entitled to the property bearing plot No.32 after the death of Tamilselvi. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Tamilselvi(A3) obtained a bank loan for construction of a house and in fact, they constructed the house d