ORDER

This petition is filed to call for records in C.C.No.103 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee and quash the same.

2. Final report in C.C.No.103 of 2008 was filed on the basis of the complaint of the defacto complainant dated 30.07.2007. The defacto complainant is the second respondent in this case. The case of the second respondent is that he is a practising Advocate, he purchased two plots in Sivappoothamedu village, Vanagaram, Chennai in Plot Nos.21 and 22 in S.No.83/2 totally measring 3150 sq.ft from one K.Thulasinga Moorthy on 03.05.2002. The sale consideration was Rs.80,000/-. At the time of registration, the sale deed was kept pending for registration due to want of NOC. Second respondent filed Writ Petition before this Court and got order releasing the sale deed. On 15.07.2007 at about 3pm, Thulasinga Moorthy, his brother-in-law A.Balamurugan and one Venkatesan along with 5 others trespassed into his plots with deadly weapons. Second respondent came to know that Thulasinga Moorthy created forged documents after his purchase. He created documents in favour of his wife Tmt.Pushpa and brother-in-law Balamurugan for the same plot Nos.21 and 22. They, in turn, created power of attorney deeds in favour of one Venkatesan. Knowing fully well that after the purchase by the second respondent and he is in possession from 2002, the accused colluded and committed criminal breach of trust, created forgery of documents and cheated him. They criminally trespassed into his plots and made criminal intimidation with deadly weapons. Therefore, this complaint.

3. On the basis of this complaint, first respondent conducted investigation and filed final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 465, 466, 467, 469 r/w.471, 420 r/w.120-B and 109 IPC. Challenging taking cognizance of this case against the petitioners, petitioners filed this petition for quashing the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even after taking the averments and allegations in C.C.No.103 of 2008 and all the materials and evidence on record, uncontroverted, no offence is made out against any of the petitioners under any of the Sections of IPC cited in the final report. There is no averments or allegations in the charge sheet that petitioners made any false and fraudulent representation and made the second respondent part with money, property or act to his detriment and therefore, no case of cheating under Section 420 IPC is made out. Execution of sale deed by first petitioner in favour of second and third petitioners will not and may not tantamount or make out a case of forgery and creating a false document etc. No offence under Sections 465, 466, 467, 469 r/w.471, 420 r/w.120-B and 109 IPC is made out and when there is no material to prove the substantial offence under IPC, they cannot be said to have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy or abetment. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments reported in 2006 (6) SCC 736 (Indian Oil Corporation ..vs.. NEPC India Ltd., and others), (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Mohammed Ibrahim and Others ..vs.. State of Bihar and another), (2009) 15 SCC 643 (Mir Nagvi Askari ..vs.. Central Bureau of Investigation) and 2018 (7) SCC 581 (Sheila Sebastian ..vs.. R.Jawaharaj and another).

5. In reply, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioners are close relatives and they created a sale deed after the property was sold to the second respondent. When the second sale deed was executed, first petitioner was no more the owner of the property, but he continued to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3. Hence, there was an intention to cheat and divest the property of the second respondent by the execution of the sale deed in favour of petitioners 2 and 3.

Materials produced in support of the prosecution case clearly established the offences of forgery, forgery for the pu