Quashing an FIR is premature when a thorough investigation is necessary to ascertain the allegations' validity.

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.92 of 2025, pending on the file of the

1^st respondent police.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Based on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, alleging that the petitioners along with one Sankari/A2 created bogus patta and based on the said forged/bogus patta, they also created subsequent documents with a criminal intent to illegally grab the property owned by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent police registered the aforesaid FIR in Crime No.92 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 420 and 120B of IPC as against the petitioners and other accused.

Challenging the same, the petitioners have come up with this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a case of civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. He further submitted that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.OP.No.28397 of 2025 and this Court, observing that the dispute is civil in nature and that there are no allegations regarding the creation of any third-party interest, held that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and accordingly, granted anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners, vide order dated 14.11.2025. He also submitted that the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant made the present false and exaggerated complaint as against the petitioners and other accused persons by suppressing the pendency of civil suits between the parties and the 1^st respondent-police, without considering the fact that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that the appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil court, entertained the complaint made by the 2^nd respondent, which is not sustainable and the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned FIR in Crime No.92 of 2025 as against the petitioners.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the 1^st respondent police submitted that only pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2025 made in Cr.M.P.No.822 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, directing the 1^st respondent police to register the 2^nd respondent’s case and investigate the matter, the present FIR has been registered based on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, that too only on 25.08.2025 and that investigation in this case is under progress. He further submitted that the 2^nd respondent approached this Court seeking appropriate direction to the 1^st respondent police to file a final report in the present FIR in Crime No.92 of 2025 and this Court, vide order dated 05.02.2026, directed the 1^st respondent-police to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of four months. He also submitted that the 1^st respondent are conducting a fair enquiry and that the enquiry/ investigation will be completed and final report will be filed within the time stipulated by this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. In view of the above submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court is of the view that the allegations of criminal intimidation made against the petitioners can be ascertained only after a thorough investigation and therefore, quashing the impugned proceedings at this stage would be nothing but an exercise in futility.

7. Hence, this Court, without interfering with the impugned FIR, directs the 1^st respondent-police to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible a