ORDER

The case of the prosecution is that as per the complaint given by the second respondent, the grand father of the defacto complainant has purchased the property and the same was grabbed by the 1st accused/Vanjunavalli, she claimed that she is the foster daughter of one Muthukrishna Iyer. Originally, the propperty was belongs to Muthukrishna Iyer and he has sold the propertis to his brother Gopala Iyer and others. After the death of Muthukrishna Iyer, the 1st accused claimed that she is the legal heir and obtained a certificate and fabricated the will and grabbed property belongs to the defacto complainant's grand father. Further, the 1st accused had fraudulently created the Will and grabbed the property. Thus, the petitioner along with other accused persons have colluded together to grab the property belongs to the defacto complainant's grand father. Hence, the complaint.

2. The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in Crime No366 of 2011.

Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, the FIR was registered against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w 120(B) of IPC. Subsequently, the 1st respondent police has conducted the investigation and filed a final report before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Land Grabbing Cases No.2), Egmore, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.5084 of 2023. Challenging the said final report, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only Power of Attorney of A1 and the petitioner is not aware acted upon the alleged fradulent transacation said to be committed by the 1st accused/Vanjunavalli. He further submitted that there is no document was executed by the petitioner in his capacity as Power of Attorney. He furthers submitted that the 1st accused had given a power of attorny to this petitioner and the same was cancelled 23.10.2009 but as per the final report submitted on the side of the prosecution is that the petitioner is only Power of Attorney of A1 and he entered into an sale agreement dated 08.08.2008 in favour of Sathyanarayanan/A5 but subsequently, the said alleged sale agreement also not been enforced. Thereafter, the said property was sold to other parties through A8 in the year 2009. He further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

1st respondent police has submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons had created the documents and sold the proerties which belongs to the defacto complainant's grand father. He further submitted that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, the case was registered and filed a final report before the trial Court.

5. On a perusal of records, it reveals that the 1st accused had given a power of attorny to this petitioner and the same was cancelled. Thereafter, the 1st accused had appointed one B.Kumaravel Pandian/A8 as her power agent and sold the properties to A5 through A8. Further, as on date, the petitioner is not Power of Attorney of the 1st accused and he has not sold any property to other parties. Hence, there is no basic incriminating materials against this petitioner. Further, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5084 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

05.01.2024 Speaking / Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index :Yes/No msrm To

1. The Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Land Grabbing Cases No.2), Egmore, Chennai.

2. The Special Court for CCB, Cases Egmore, Chennai.

3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, 17-A, Anti -Land Grabbing Special Branch, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Ma