ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.284 of 2020 pending on the file of the first Respondent.

2.When the case came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had been arrayed as Accused based on the Complaint given by the sister of the first Petitioner to the Forgery Prevention Wing. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the first Petitioner and second Respondent are the daughters of the former Minister G.Bhuvarahan (Late) in the Cabinet of Kumaraswami Kamaraj (Late) Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He had purchased the property and he had alleged to have executed a Will in favour of the first Petitioner. There were two attesting witnesses to the Will wherein one of the witness is died.

3.As per the FIR in Crime No.284 of 2020, the first Petitioner herein had arrayed as Accused No.1, Accused No.2 is the attesting witness, Accused No.3 is the daughter of Accused No.1 and Accused No.4 is the son of Accused No.1. It is to be noted that the T.O.S.No.1 of 2018 had been filed before the original side of this Court and the same is pending. There was an application in A.No.4732 of 2019 filed by the first Petitioner and the matter was referred to the Hand Writing Expert for comparing the signature of Late G.Bhuvarahan in the Passport of the late G.Bhuvarahan and other documents that were referred to the Court by appointing Advocate Commissioner for forwarding the disputed signature and comparing the signature in the admitted documents to the Forensic Department and for filing the Forensic Report before this Court. Accordingly, the report was addressed to the Registry (Original Side). When that was the case, when the report was received in the Court, the first Petitioner herein had filed an Application in A.No.9572 of 2019 seeking permission of this Court to peruse the originals sent to the Forensic Department for verification. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge who was then presiding over the Jurisdiction had permitted the second Respondent/Complainant herein and their Counsel to peruse the records. Based on the perusal of records, the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert that was received by the Court was taken notice by the second Respondent, which is against the principles regarding conduct of Civil Proceedings by the Court of law. Without getting permission from the Court, the second Respondent had preferred a Complaint based on the forensic report. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the findings given by the Forensic Expert is not an evidence. It is a subject evidence before the trial proceedings either in Criminal Court or Civil Court and the findings of the learned Single Judge in T.O.S.No. 1 of 2018 is not final. While so, she had proceeded to harass the first Petitioner by lodging this Complaint based on which the FIR had been registered. The basic subject dispute is between sisters, both are daughters of late G.Bhuvarahan regarding the claim of the forged Will or claim over the property.

4. Therefore, the subject dispute pending on the original side of this Court was referred during the pendency of the Suit. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that during the trial, the learned Judge arrived at a clear conclusion that one of the parties in the proceedings had committed fraud and forgery. It is for the learned Judge to pass appropriate orders to refer the matter to criminal prosecution. While so, instead of waiting for the conclusion of the trial, the second Respondent had proceeded with the Criminal complaint, based on which the FIR in Crime No.284 of 2020 on the file of the first Respondent was registered. Therefore, he seeks to quash the FIR on the ground that a Civil dispute had been converted into a Criminal case by the second Respondent which attracts the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC

335:1992