ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in FIR in Cr.No.1/2021 pending on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The petitioners are ranked as A4 and A6 in the FIR in Cr.No.1/2021 for the offences under Sections34, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.82(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.

3.The case of the prosecution relates to 21 Acres of land situated in three Survey Numbers 325/1, 327/1C2 & 329 respectively, situated at Jallipatti Village, Udumalaipettai. The defacto complainant has given a complaint by alleging that the subject property was originally belonged to one Ben Bright Singh and he had executed two power of attorney documents in favour of one Illango and Antony Domenic respectively. The said Antony Domenic has executed a sale deed in document No.5485/2001 in respect of an extent of 9.53 Acres in S.No.327/1A, an extent of 3.51 Acres in S.No.327/1C and 2.92 Acres in S.No.329 has been sold in favour of one Mohamed Rabi by virtue of a registered sale deed in Document No.6999/2007; the said Mohamed Rafik has sold the same in favour of the Natarajan in the year 2017 and thereafter, the second respondent's mother Vasuki purchased the said property from Natarajan. An another extent of 3.01 Acres in Survey Number 323, an extent of 4.62 Acres in Survey Number 324 and an extent of 1.93 Acres in Survey Number 325/1 was purchased by one Vasanthi from Antony Dominic by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5484/2001. An another extent of 6.56 Acres was purchased by one Bremba Lingam from the Antony Dominic in the capacity as power agent by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing No.5483/2001.

3.1.The grievance of the complainant is that A1 has impersonated the original owner Ben Bright Singh and executed a power of attorney in favour of A3; the other accused colluded with A1 and A3 and created various sale deeds in respect of the very same property. The petitioners / A4 & A6 had also purchased of a portion of the property from the third accused. Since the petitioners/A4 and A6 and other accused claimed counter title over the subject property by getting sale deeds from the power agent of a fake person, this complaint is given.

4.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides and perused the materials available on record.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners/

A4 & A6 have got no criminal intention in purchasing the properties; they are bonafide purchasers for values; they believed the title of A1 and the power possessed by A3; one Vasanthi had purchased the property from Antony Dominic have also filed a civil suit in respect of the subject property against A4 in OS.No.212/2019 before the learned Sub Judge, Udumalpet and the same is pending; A4 has also filed a suit against the said Vasanthi and the second respondents mother Vasuki has filed a suit in OS.No.149 of 2019 for claiming the relief of declaration and permanent injunction; A6/Iyyamani have also filed an yet another suit against the second respondent's mother Vasuki and another purchaser Vasanthi in OS.No.427 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tarapuram; these suits have been filed in the year 2019 itself; the second respondent's mother is aware of the civil disputes revolving the subject property; still she has chosen to prefer a criminal complaint by implicating the petitioners as well; the petitioners at the worst could have been considered as witnesses; they could not have got any criminal intention hence no criminal liability can be fastened against them.

6.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the first respondent police submitted that a civil suit cannot be a bar for criminal action and only if the investigation is allowed to progress the criminal intention, possessed by the petitioners can come to light; hence, the FIR cannot be quashed against these petitioners. In support of his cont