ORDER

Accused 1, 2 and 4 are the petitioners herein.

2. The Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.220 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and quash the same.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Criminal Original Petition, is as under (i) The petitioners 1 and 2, J.Janet Helen Bertha and Gladis Elda Glory are the legal heirs of Late Richard S.J.Rao. The legal heir of Late Richard S.J.Rao viz., J.Janet Helen Bertha and Gladis Elda Glory are not added as the party to the criminal proceedings neither as a complainant nor as the accused.

(ii) The house site bearing Door No.9, Sankar Street, Bharathipuram, Nemilichery Village, Chrompet, Chennai – 600 004, in Survey No.173/3A, measuring an extent of 1740 sq.ft. was originally purchased by Late Richard S.J.Rao in 1982 from one Veerudhagiri under registered Sale Deed.

(iii) Mr. Richard S.J.Rao died intestate on 12.01.1987 and their mother died on 13.02.1988 leaving the title deeds of the above said property with the second petitioner and her late husband.

(iv) The Late Richard S.J.Rao died intestate leaving 1/5th share among all the five legal heirs since there are totally five legal heirs. (v) When the first respondent filed the complaint in C.C.No.220 of

2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Tambaram under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of IPC, has only included the names of first and second petitioners leaving behind the two other legal heirs namely Mrs.J.Janet Helen Berthea D/o. Late Richard S.J.Rao and Mrs. Gladys Elda Glory D/o. Late Richard S.J.Rao.

(vi) In the above complaint in C.C.No.220/2014 has arrayed the names of J.K.Dharma Sahayam S/o.Late Joseph Kanniyappan and his two daughters namely Jecinta Irene Selvakani and Reeta Josphine Nesam, who are the third petitioner and third respondent herein, respectively.

4. The case of the petitioners/accused is that even though Late Richard S.J.Rao died intestate leaving 1/5th share in the above mentioned property among the first petitioner, the first respondent, J.Jenet Helen Bertha and Gladis Elda Glory had given their consent in writing and received the payments for their share in favour of the second petitioner to transfer the vacant above said property in her name and they have no objection before the revenue authorities for granting Patta in the name of the second petitioner.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners/accused that the first respondent/complainant received a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the second petitioner on 20.01.1996 and signed a receipt in full and final settlement of her share in the above said property. Another legal heir by name Janet Helen Bertha D/o. Late Richard S.J.Rao received a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the second petitioner on 18.06.1999 and signed a receipt in full and final settlement of her share in the above said property and another legal heir by name Mrs.Gladys Elda Glory D/o.Late Richard S.J.Rao received a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the second petitioner on 10.04.1999 and signed a receipt in full and final settlement of her share in the above said property. Once the entire amount is received, executed the documents, subsequently the first respondent/complainant did not have any legal right to claim the property. After receiving the amount and giving consent in relinquishing their right in the property, again gave consent to change in the revenue records and executed the settlement deeds and these facts are very well known to the first petitioner, the first respondent, J.Janet Helen Bertha and Gladis Elda Glory.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that the Pallavaram Municipality recognized the second petitioner's possession and enjoyment over the property and accordingly, patta and adangal were issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Alandur bearing RPD 12992/2009 in favour of the second petitioner and thereafter the second petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 17