IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-11-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CRL MP NO. 2701 OF 2024

1.J.Arul S/o. P.Jothi

2.A. Jayaseetha W/o. Arul

3.A. Aadhithya S/o. J.Arul, All are residing at Flat No.103, Tower 10, Esplanade Apartment, No.75, Vaidyanathan Stret, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By ItsThe Inspector of Police, Team-27, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai – 8.

2.Mr P Jothi S/o Punnavana Nadar No 660/4 Thiruvotiyur High Road Tondiarpet Chennai-600081 (R2 Suo Motu Impleaded as Per Order Dt 05/08/2024 In Crl Rc No 279/2024 And Crl MP No 2701/2024))

..Respondent(s)

To set aside order dated 22.11.2023 made in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.No.2446 of 2023 in CC.No.220 of 2022, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee.

CRL MP No. 2701 of 2024 To grant interim Stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.2446 of 2023 in CC.No.220 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. V.P.Sengottuvel for Mr. R.Veeramani For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R1 Order Challenging the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee in Crl.M.P.No. 2446 of 2023, dated 22.11.2023, the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial court, the petitioners have filed a petition under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge them from the charges under Sec.465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Sec.109 and 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.09 of 2020. The said petition was dismissed by the trial court stating that as per the final report, there is prima facie materials available to prosecute the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 and hence, the trial court is inclined to discharge them from charges levelled against them. Aggrieved over the said findings, the petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The defacto complainant is the father of the 1st petitioner, who gave a complaint stating that the 1st petitioner without any right whatsoever executed the settlement deed dated 04.03.2019 with regard to the property belongs to him as per Koorchhit dated 15.06.1984, thereafter he settled the property in favour of wife on 04.02.2019 and having came to know that this petitioner/A1 executed a settlement deed on 04.02.2019 in favour of his wife, who in turn executed a settlement deed in favour of her husband on 10.04.2019, thereby created forged and fabricated record. Based on the said settlement deed, they have entered into sale deed with a third party. Therefore, the father of 1st petitioner/accused gave a complaint and based on that complaint, F.I.R. in Crime No.9 of 2020 was registered for an offence under Sec. 465, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. Thereafter, final report was filed and the criminal case was taken on file in C.C.No.220 of 2022 against all the three accused. The 1st accused is son born to first wife of defacto complainant. The 2nd petitioner is wife of A1. The 3rd petitioner is son of A1. Thereafter, they have filed a petition before the trial court to discharge them from the charges stating that they have not committed any forgery or fraudulent document and also challenged the Koorcit, which was relied on by the defacto complainant stating that it was an unregistered document, through which his father is not having absolute right nor entitled to transfer the property including his share. Therefore, he challenged the koorchit as well as right of defacto complainant and prayed to discharge them before the trial court stating that the allegation of forgery and other charges levelled against them without any evidence. But, the said petition was dismissed. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial court.

4. The learned counsel for defacto complainant would submit that the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant having long