IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM Crl.O.P.Nos.15019 & 26805 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7574, 7575 & 15454 of 2018 Sivalingam ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.15019/2018 K.M. Deivasigamani ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.26805/2018 Vs

1. State rep. By Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District. Cr. No.21/2010

2. S.Sudha ... Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps Common Prayer: Both the Criminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records relating to C.C.No.214 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Parthasarathy in both Crl.O.Ps For Respondent No.1 : Mr. L. Baskaran, in both Crl.O.Ps For Respondent No.2 : Mr. A.Saravanan in both Crl.O.Ps

COMMON ORDER

Both the Criminal Original Petitions had been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.214 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem and quash the same.

2. Since the issue involved in both the original petitions is one and the same, both the Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of by way of a common order.

3. The petitioner(Sivalingam) in Crl.O.P.No.15019 of 2018 is arrayed as A1 and the petitioner(K.M.Deivasigamani) in Crl.O.P.No.26805 of 2018 is arrayed as A5 in C.C.No.214 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant's husband, A1, A3 & A4 had jointly done the real estate business. Subsequently, there was a dispute between them with regard to kidnaping of A1's daughter,Tamilselvi, by the huband of the defacto complainant. Only thereafter, the complaint has been given by the defacto complainant with the allegation that A1 had forgedly created the document of unregistered power of attorney with the help of A5 and executed a sale deed on 10.06.2010 in favour of the A7 and A8, namely, Sundaram and Ravikumar. He further submitted that the defacto complainant withdrew two other complaints filed against A1. In this case also, against these petitioners, she gave a letter to withdraw the complaint. Inspite of the same, the respondent police had not closed the complaint and recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed chargesheet in C.C.No.214 of 2016. Hence, prays to quash the case.

5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that now, the matter is pending before the Trial Court for the examination of prosecution witnesses.

6. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully.

7. On perusal of the case records, the fact reveals that the defacto complainant's husband, Sakthivel, along with A1, A3 and A4 had joinly done real estate business. Subsequently, Tamilselvi, who is daughter of A1, was Kidnapped by the said Sakthivel. In such situation, the first accused in order to grab the land of the said Sakthivel prepared an unregistered power of attorney with the help of A5 Deivasigamani and in pursuance of the said unregistered powr of attorney, on 10.06.2010, executed a sale deed in favour of A7 Sundar and A8 Ravikumar and hence, all the accused are proecuted for the offences under Sections 468, 471 r/w. 109 of IPC. Now, the case is pending for examination of the prosecution witnesses. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners sumitted that two cases were withdrawn by the defacto complainant, and further she had given a letter to withdraw the complaint in connection with this case, the resondent police has not closed the complaint. So under these circumstances, if the withdrawal letter given by the defact complainant is true, it has to be given effect and other factual dispute is, whether the sale deed already executed has been cancelled or not, it has to be considered only before the Trial Court. No factual dispute has to be effected while exerising the power un