C O M M O N O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition Nos.28966 of 2015 and 23556 of 2016 have been filed challenging the proceedings in C.C.No. 167 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry.

2. The Criminal Original Petition No. 17323 of 2016 has been filed challenging the proceedings in C.C.No. 129 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry for offences under Section 425, 426, 427, 441 of IPC.

3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No. 23566 of 2016 are arrayed as A1 to A5 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 28966 of 2015 are arrayed as A6 to A11. The second respondent in both the criminal original petitions is arrayed as second accused in a private complaint filed by the eighth accused in C.C.No. 167 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry. In both the Criminal Original Petitions, proceedings are pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry and also both the parties are rival complainant in both the proceedings and as such, this Court propose to dispose of the petitions by way of this common order.

4. The case of the prosecution in C.C.No.167 of 2015 is that the property comprised in R.S.No. 96/1 Pt. (Cadastre No. 2357) in Gorimedu Village, Puducherry measuring 02K.08Ku.15V, belongs to Loganathan and Kandasamy. Both are brothers and they sold jointly the property to Ramaraja by copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 15.05.1981. In turn, Ramaraja executed a Registered Will dated 12.12.1984 in favour of his wife Kasthuri. After the demise of the said Ramaraja, his wife Kasthuri divided a portion of the land admeasuring 01K.06Ku.15V and converted the same into residential plots by way of layout in the name and style of “Ramaraja Nagar”. Thereafter, the house plots were sold out to various persons. Out of the remaining extent of 01K.51Ku.00V, she also sold a portion, to an extent of 00K.51Ku.00V, by the registered sale deed dated 16.03.2005, in favour of one Umarani Banumathi.

5. In turn, the said Umarani Banumathi had sold the entire extent of property to different persons by way of seven different registered sale deeds dated 01.10.2007. Therefore, the said Loganathan and Kandasamy had no title. In respect of subject property, since they had already sold the entire extent of the property in the year 1981 itself.

6. While being so, the second accused in C.C.No. 167 of 2015 filed a suit in the year 1998, in O.S.No. 311 of 1998, as against the said Loganathan and Kandasamy and others for partition, and obtained a decree in her favour by judgment and decree dated 27.01.2000. Based on the said decree, she sold the property by way of six different registered sale deeds to the other accused persons. One of the accused, namely eighth accused, had filed a suit in O.S.No. 1260 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry for injunction as against the defacto-complainant/second respondent and others.

7. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, no First Information Report was registered and as such, she filed a direction petition and on the direction issued by this Court, First Information Report was registered in Crime No. 457 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 468, 471, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

8. After the completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No. 167 of 2015. After taking cognizance, the eighth accused filed a private complaint as against the second respondent and others for offenses punishable under Sections 425, 426, 427, 441 and 447 of IPC and the same has been taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No-I, Puduchery in C.C.No. 129 of 2016.

9. The learned counsel for the accused persons A1 to A11 submitted that originally, the subject property belonged to Kandasamy and Latchumi, both are brother and sister and they had executed an unregistered agreement for sale in favour of the first accused. Subsequently, they had also executed Power