ORDER

Heard Mr.R.Natarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioners at length and also Mr.Bharatha Chakaravarthy, learned Public Prosecutor for the Union Territory of Puducherry for the first respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent/defacto complainant.

2.At any rate, taking into account the nature of the order, that is now to be passed, absence of representation on behalf of the second respondent/defacto complainant would not be material. The petitioners herein had been arrayed as A1, A2 and A3 in F.I.R.No.121/2017, registered by the first respondent Police under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C r/w 34 of I.P.C.

3.The first respondent did not register the said complaint based on the complaint given by the second respondent. Rather, they did so on a direction by the jurisdictional Magistrate, before whom a petition was filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on appreciation of the facts stated therein, the jurisdictional Magistrate had directed registration of said First Information Report.

4.This is a cause for grievance by Mr.R.Natarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioners. He pointed out various facts and stated that the investigation would be a futile exercise and therefore this Court must curtail investigation on the First Information Report and as a matter of fact, quash the First Information Report.

5.The learned Counsel stated that O.S.No.132 of 1992 had been filed by the father of the second respondent / defacto complainant before the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikal, seeking partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in two items of property, namely A and B items of the property. The suit went to trial and during the course of trial, learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, found that the plaintiff therein namely, the father of the second respondent / defacto complainant herein was not entitled to any share in the A schedule property and gave a decree as sought for only with respect to B schedule property.

6.Subsequently, an application for final decree was also filed and an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed and I am informed that necessary procedure in accordance with law had also been complied with.

7.The matter should have rested there. However, it again came up for consideration owing to a complaint given by the defacto complainant before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirunallar Police Station, Thirunallar /

first respondent herein. This was on 31.12.2016.

8.Among other statements made in the said complaint, the defacto complainant/second respondent herein had also alleged that her father was non-suited in O.S.No.132/1992 with respect to A schedule property primarily because, there had been some irregularities which had occurred with respect to the patta of the said land. She alleged forgery among other offences. This complaint was enquired into by the Station House Officer of the Thirunallar Police Station who had invited both the defacto complainant / second respondent herein and also the accused and examined the documents and had finally stated that “matter is purely civil in nature, hence, both the parties are advised to seek remedy through Court, revenue or survey department. And both parties are advised not to create any law and order problem.”

9.The matter should have rested there.

10.However, the second respondent / defacto complainant then approached the jurisdictional Magistrate namely, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and as stated filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

11.The learned Magistrate had thereafter directed registration of First Information Report and accordingly, the first respondent had registered First Information Report in Crime No.121 of 2017 on 24.08.2017 under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C r/w 34 of I.P.C. All the three named accused are before this Court, seeking to quash the said First Information Report.

12.One reason advanced by Mr.R.Natarajan, learned coun