O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the final report in C.C.No.84 of 2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 120 [b], 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is as follows :

One Ramasamy Gounder owned an extent of one acre property in survey No.207D and he was allotted one acre of land in Survey No.196 by a partition deed dated 29.06.1924. Thereafter, the said Ramasamy Gounder has sold the property to one Chenniappa Gounder on 17.03.1959. While selling the property, instead of mentioning the survey No.207 [D] he has referred the survey number as 196. However, the boundaries are correct. Thereafter, patta was also issued in favour of Chenniappa Gounder. Subsequent to the same he has also executed a settlement in favour of his legal heirs and the remaining extent has also been settled to his daughter and the settlees also dealt with the properties. When the matter stood thus, A1 and his brother Krishnamurthy have partitioned their property in the year 1983. They dealt with the property knowing well that they do not have any right in the property. They also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A1, wherein A2 and A7 were attested witnesses. Pursuant to the same A1 to A3 had entered into an agreement for sale in favour of A4 to A6. Thereby, the accused had committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the civil nature of the case is converted into criminal prosecution. Originally in two survey numbers 207 [D] and 196 to an extent of 35 cents and 58 cents have been allotted to the one Ramasamy Gounder in a partition deed dated 29.06.1924. The said Ramasamy Gounder had sold the property to an extent of one acre land in survey No.196 in favour of Chenniappa Gounder on 17.03.1959. The defacto complainant is the legal heir of the Chenniappa Gounder and the accused are the legal heirs and agreement holders in respect of the property. It is his contention that the Ramasamy Gounder has not sold the property allotted to him under the partition deed dated 29.06.1924, whereas he has sold a different area comprised in survey No.196. Therefore, it is his contention that when the allotment in his favour was in respect of 93 cents, the question of selling one acre in the same survey does not arise at all. Whereas, he has sold the property relating to survey No.196, which is no way connected to the property allotted in partition deed on 29.06.1924. It is his further contention that though the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration, the same was dismissed for default and the application filed to restore the suit was also dismissed against which the petitioner has filed CRP, which is pending. It is his further contention that merely because the parties have sold the properties claiming that the properties are their own properties, creating false documents as per section 464 of IPC cannot be attracted. Therefore, submitted that the entire prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law.

4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the the petitioner being the agreement holder has filed a suit in O.S.No.331 of

2013 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode for specific performance of the agreement. The learned trial judge found that the defendants have no claim over the property and therefore, the agreement is not valid in law. He has also submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.369 of 2010 has already been dismissed. Hence, when a person has no title over the property, executing an agreement itself amounts to forgery. Therefore, the final report filed by the prosecution cannot be quashed.

5. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] submitted that the prosecution has filed the final report and the same cannot be quashed.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. The crux of the prosecution case