ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking for quashment of the charge sheet in C.C.No. 11 of 2017 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli.

2.The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that the petitioner is arrayed as accused before the trial Court by the first respondent on the following grounds:

The deceased Ponnusamy is the first accused, the second accused is the petitioner herein and the third accused is the husband of this petitioner. Both the first and third accused expired. The first accused, namely, Ponnusamy sold a plot in Plot No.21 measuring 6.07 cents in Survey No. 142/2 in V.M.Chathiram, on 09.09.1983 to one Adhimoolameenakshi, who is shown as witness No.1. So, after selling the property, the first accused does not have any title over the property, but, with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant, the first accused sold the property to this petitioner on 17.05.2004 in conspiracy, all the accused joined together and created false document the third accused signed as the witness in the document and they also by using forged document sold the same to one Samuvel on 16.04.2009. So, all the accused cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and caused loss and so, all the accused are liable to be punished for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.

3.Based upon the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2011 under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., collected materials, recorded statements of witnesses and filed the final report as stated above. Challenging the final report, the second accused before the trial Court has filed this present petition, mainly on the ground that it is purely a civil dispute and she never indulged in conspiracy in cheating with the first and third accused and she was a bona fide purchaser for a value, without notice, sale made by the first accused in favour of the defacto complainant. None of the allegations mentioned in the final report are attracted against her.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Simultaneously, criminal and civil proceedings are going on between the parties regarding the dispute. Even though the case of the petitioner before the civil Court and as well as at the time of investigation and filing of this petition to the effect that she is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and she never indulged in any such illegal activities, but, after the loss of civil litigation, she proposed to file an undertaking affidavit to the effect that she has knowledge about the title of the defacto complainant and so, she may be relived from the criminal case. But, the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent herein, did not accept this undertaking and according to her, the pain and suffering that has been undergone by the defacto complainant in making the criminal prosecution and filing the civil suit and fighting the same upto the High Court, must be taken into account and for no reason, she had been made to suffer mentally, financially, because of this litigation and purchases made by the petitioner from the first accused. So, according to the defacto complainant, there is no bona fideness on the part of the petitioner. Now, ipso has any genuine intention, she would have expressed the same, even at the earliest point of time before the litigation started. So, this conduct on the part of the petitioner, is with her undertaking, now, will not cure her criminal act that has been committed. According to the defacto complainant, this is not a fit case to quash the final report, and it must continue to his logical conclusion.

6.Now, coming to the allegation against the petitioner to see whether the offence are attracted, the offence is under Section 120B I.P.C. According to the prosecution, all the three accused conspired together and to cheat the defacto complainant. They entered into a conspir