Criminal proceedings can be quashed when no offence is made out against the accused, especially amidst disputes of ownership regarding property.

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in CC.No.410 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Thiruppur District.

2. The second respondent lodged complaint alleging that the property comprised in RS.No.106/1 to 106/12 to an extent of 5 acres (hereinafter called as ‘the subject property’) were donated by then owners i.e. Kittappa Mudhaliyar, Ramasamy Mudhaliar, Angappa Mudaliar, Rangasamy Mudaliar & Annamalai Mudaliar by way of unregistered gift deed dated 04.04.1985 in favour of one, Pongali Mudaliar who is the then President of the School Building Committee, Panchayat Union School, Velliraveli, Erode District to upgrade the Panchayat Union School to Government High School, Velliraveli. The Building Committee had executed settlement deed in favour of the Chief Educational Officer of School Education Department, Erode District. The second respondent further alleged that the settlor had no title over the property. On the basis of the unregistered gift deed, the settlor had executed settlement deed in favour of the settlee. While being so, the second respondent had purchased 0.44 cents in the property comprised in the same survey number by the registered sale deed dated 29.05.2008 vide document No.2964 of 2008 from one of the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the said land. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.60 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section

120B, 466, 468, 470, 471, 420 of IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act.

3. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance in CC.No.410 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli. There are totally four accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2. The first accused is the settlor. The second accused is the settlee. Third and fourth accused are witnesses to the settlement deed. It is unfortunate to state that the settlor who had executed gift deed in favour of the settlee who is none other than the Chief Educational Officer of the Education Department and the persons who stood as witnesses to the settlement deed are arrayed as accused. Now the second respondent is also no more. The first accused is also no more. The officer who served as Chief Educational Officer at the time of execution of settlement deed has now been arrayed as A2. Though it is unregistered gift deed, it was executed by the original owner of the subject property. Subsequently, the gift deed was executed by the President of the School Building Committee in favour of Chief Educational Officer of School Education Department in order to upgrade the said school from Panchayat Union Middle School to Government High School. In fact, the said gift deed was not even registered on the ground that the value of the said property was below Rs.100/-. In view of the said gift deed, the Government upgraded the middle school to Government High School, Velliraveli by the GO.No.1244 dated

16.10.1985.

4. Thereafter, the subject land was utilised for school building and the school is now running. After period of 23 years, one of the legal heirs of the deceased original owner had executed sale deed in respect of the property admeasuring 0.44 cents from the subject property in favour of the second respondent by the registered sale deed dated 06.05.2008 registered vide document No.2964 of 2008. The second respondent, without even verifying the property and without even taking possession of the property, he had simply purchased the property even after knowing the fact that the said property was already executed in favour of Chief Educational Officer, Education Department. In fact, the second respondent also filed suit as against the Collector, Dis