O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

to quash the final report filed in C.C.No.284 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate–I, Thiruvannamalai for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506(1) I.P.C.

2.The crux of the allegation in the final report is that A1 has originally settled a land in Survey No.23/5 to an extent of 35.5 cents in favour of the defacto complainant on 20.07.1978 and after the settlement, the defacto complainant was in enjoyment of the said property. When the matter stood thus, A1 again settled the same property in favour of A2 and all other accused have colluded with A1 and jointly committed the said offence.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the very settlement deed which is a base for registration of F.I.R. indicates that A1 has settled the property with specific boundaries leaving the property which was already settled in favour of the defacto complainant. Now, the contention is that merely because the settlement was made in the year 1978 and since then some extent of land has been acquired by the Government, the defacto complainant has filed the present complaint. He added that there is absolutely no materials available against the petitioners to proceed further in this case.

4.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant would submit that having settled the property in the year 1978 to an extent of 35.5 cents in favour of the defacto complainant, the same property was again subjected to encumbrance by way of settlement by A1. Hence, the offence is clearly made out.

5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that admittedly the property has been settled leaving behind the property already settled in favour of the defacto complainant and there is some dispute over the land acquired by the Government. He further contended that there is any material to show that the false documents were created or fabrication was done by A1.

6.Heard the learned counsel on either side. This Court perused all the materials placed on record.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by the District Registrar on 14.12.2019, wherein after a thorough enquiry, he has also given his findings that there is no impersonation or creation of false documents in this case.

8.Be that as it may, the very settlement deed dated 04.07.2016 which was the base for launching the prosecution itself indicates that out of 71 cents of land, A1 has settled 24.5 cents within specific boundaries. It is also clearly indicated that 24.5 cents is the land apart from the settlement given to the defacto complainant in 1978. The materials collected by the prosecution appears to be civil in dispute and there is no evidence of falsification of records or forgery or impersonation. Hence, this Court is of the view that continuation of prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

9. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Mohammed Ibrahim and other Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in [2009]

8 Supreme Court Cases 751 as follows :

17. The allegations in the complaint do not also made out the ingredients of an offence under section 504 of the Penal Code. Section 504 refers to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The allegation in the complainant is that when he enquired with accused 1 and 2 about the sale deeds, they asserted that they will obtain possession of land under the sale deeds and he can do whatever he wants. The statement attributed to appellants 1 and 2, it cannot be said to amount to an "insult with intent to provoke breach of peace". The statement attributed to accused, even if it was true, was merely a statement referring to the consequence of execution of the sale deeds by first appellant in favour of the second appellant.

Section 464 IPC deals with making of false and the same is extracted below :

"464.