O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order, dated 21.01.2021 made in Cr.MP No.2284 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Trichy.

2.The case in brief is as follows:-

The first respondent herein is the sister of the petitioners and she filed a private complaint against these petitioners and others under section 200 Cr.P.C before the trial court and the trial court took up enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C in Crl.MP No.2007 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy. The first respondent alleges that by conspiracy, the alleged Will, dated 17.04.2006 has been forged by the first petitioner herein and so, all the accused persons are liable to be punished under sections 120-B and 420 of IPC. Pending pre-cognizance stage, the first respondent filed a petition seeking direction to the first petitioner herein to produce the disputed Will before the trial court. That came to be allowed by the trial court in Crl.MP No.2284 of 2020 in Cr.M.P No.20762 of 2019, by order, dated 21.01.2021. Against which, this petition came to be filed by the petitioners mainly on the ground that protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is available to them and no order can be passed by the trial court, directing the first petitioner to produce the disputed Will. The next contention is that the 1st respondent also filed O.S No.874 of 2017 before the Additional District Munsif, Trichy and she can very well take steps to send for the original Will in view of the above said proceedings.

3.The Further contention is that the genuineness of the Will has been recognized in O.S No.213 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Court, Trichy, by which a compromise decree has been passed. Even though the points 2 and 3 are factual issues, the main contention that has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

4.A counter has also been filed by the first respondent herein, who is the complainant before the trial court. Even though the factual circumstances are required to be elaborated for the purpose of better appreciation, the issue involved in this case matter can also be taken into consideration.

5.Heard both sides.

6.As usual, it is a property dispute between the brothers and sister.

The father of the parties is one Sangilimuthu Chettiar. He got five children namely S.Subramanian, S.Swaminathan, R.S.Manohar, Baskar and Jayalakshmi. The wife of Sangilimuth Chettiar is Rajamani Ammal. They had also another son called 'Thiyagarajan'. He went away from the family. The properties purchased by Sangalimuthu Chettiar are his self-acquired properties. Apart from his self-acquired properties, he is also owning ancestral properties. During his life time, he executed two registered sale deeds bequeathing his properties in favour of several persons as stated in the plaint in O.S No.874 of 2017. Those facts are not relevant for discussion, so we can skip those particulars.

7.The said Sangalimuthu Chettiar was affected by paralysis and he died, on 29.04.2006. Now, it is the claim of the first petitioner that an unregistered Will was executed by his father, on 17.04.2006 bequeathing properties in his favour and in favour of S.Swaminathan and other sons.

This Will, according to the first respondent, is a forged one.

8.A suit in O.S No.213 of 2006 was filed by the first petitioner by arraying his mother Rajamani Ammal and others, as defendants, for permanent injunction. In respect of the property that was bequeathed in his favour, a compromise was reached between the parties. In the above said suit and in the compromise, the 2nd defendant namely Rajamani Aammal admitted the genuineness of the Will, dated 17.04.2006 and that Will, after execution was kept in the cupboard and after the death of Sangalimuthu Chettiar, it was taken on 19.04.2006 after the 6th day ceremony, by Rajamani Ammal and it was show