ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai.

2. According to the petitioners, based on the complaint given by the respondents 2 & 3, the first respondent has registered a case in Crime No.88 of 2013 as against the petitioners and others. The first petitioner has been arrayed as 5th accused and the second petitioner has been arrayed as 6th accused in the above said case. After registration of the First Information Report, the first respondent has investigated the case and filed a final report and based on the final report, the learned Magistrate, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai, had taken cognizance of the case in C.C.No.39 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 447 and 448 of IPC.

3.1. According to the prosecution case, the defacto complainants i.e., the respondents 2 & 3 are the owners of 6 cents of vacant site at Kodaikanal, and the same was inherited from their father K.P.Ramasamy. Since the petitioners trespassed into the property, they have filed a Suit before the Sub-Court, Palani and got permanent injunction. Despite the same, the petitioners trespassed and encroached the said property and attempted to grab the said land. Hence, they lodged a complaint.

3.2. The first petitioner had obtained a power of attorney deed from the third accused viz., Sobana Mani dated 11.09.2006 and based on the power deed, the fifth accused/first petitioner sold the property to the sixth accused/second petitioner on 27.02.2007. Therefore, the sixth accused/second petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration and even according to the First Information Report and charge sheet no offences were made out as against the petitioners. In fact, the present complaint was preferred with a request to transfer the complaint from the Deputy Superintendent of Police to any other officer. But based on the transfer petition, this First Information Report has been registered. The defacto complainants themselves admitted that already Civil Suits preferred by both the parties were pending before the respective Civil Courts. The third accused had purchased the property from the first and second accused in the year 1996. The above said vendors derived the title from the partition deed in the year 1936, whereas the defacto complainants claiming possession and title from the exchange deed said to have been executed in the year 1970. Any how, the second petitioner/sixth accused purchased the property in the year 2007 i.e., on (27.02.2007) and from the date of sale itself, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he also constructed a building in the disputed property, whereas, the defacto complainants said to have been taken possession only in the year 2011 i.e., on 14.10.2011.

3.3. These petitioners are not parties to the above said suit and they have no knowledge about the above said delivery given to the defacto complainants. Even if it is admitted that the possession was given to the defacto complainants, the date of possession is only on 14.10.2011, but the petitioners sale deed is on 27.02.2007. Therefore, much prior to the date of delivery, the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, the question of trespass would not arise.

3.4. As far as, the offences under Sections 465, 467 and 471 of IPC are concerned, the first petitioner is the power of attorney holder and he only conveyed the property on behalf of his principle and he has no intention to cheat anybody and he has not created any documents. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, he is a bonafide purchaser and he has not executed any false deed or created any false documents, thereby the offences under Sections 465, 468 & 471 would not attract. While the facts are being so, the false complaint has been lodged by the r