Civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal cases merely to pressure parties or harass them.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in CC.No.6/2022 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Land Grabbing Court, Namakkal.

2.The facts of the case is that by virtue of the decree passed in O.S.No.398 of 2008 the second respondent has obtained the property in 62/4A to an extent of 4.70 cres in Minnampalli Village in Survey No.94/4 to an extent of 1.25 acres in Klangani Village in Survey No.94/6 to an extent of 3/3/4 cents in undivided share of 7.2 cents; in Survey No.94/1B to an extent of 63 cents situated in Kalangaani Village all together in total comprised of 6.66 acres which is in “A” Schedule” Property. Originally the property belongs to the first petitioner/Kandasami/father-in-law of the second respondent. The said Kandasamy has two sons and one daughter Balasubramaniam Periyasamy and Vasantha. The said Kandasamy settled the properties to his legal heirs. It is stated that after the demise of the husband of the second respondent/Balasubramaniam the property was transferred to the name of the second respondent based on the will dated 02.08.2002. While being so, the father-in-law of the second respondent prepared forged documents and transferred the property to the children of his daughter. With regard to the said issue two suits were pending in O.S.No.398 of 200 and O.S.No.413 of 2022 and when both the suits are pending, the second respondent filed a complaint under Sections 120-B,467,468,471, 420 of I.P.C and Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908 and the same was registered in Crime No.32 of 2012 dated 04.09.2012 and the first respondent filed a charge sheet on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal and the same was transferred to Special Judicial Magistrate, Land Grabbing, Namakkal in C.C.No.6 of 2022. To quash the said C.C., the petitioners have filed the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of the second respondent who claims that the properties referrd above were enjoyed by her and also sold some of the properties and entered into a sale agreement during 2008 to 2010 respective. The petitioner was not aware of the fraudulent of the husband of the second respondent. He further submits that the first petitioner had settled some of the properties to his grandchildren on 07.04.2011 which was challenged by the second respondent by way of filing a suit in O.S.No.433 of 2017. I.e after a lapse of six years.

4.The learned Government Advocate would submit that as the prima facie materials are available they have registered the F.I.R and the same is taken on file in C.C.No.6 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Land Grabbing, Namakkal

5.Inspite of notice served to the second respondent there is no representation on the side of the second respondent.

6.On a perusal of records it is seen that the second respondent had executed a will on 02.08.2002. In the said will the second respondent had stated that after his demise, his wife and his children are the owners of the subject property. The first petitioner did not have any knowledge about the will executed by his son who is the second respondent, therefore he settled the properties in favour of his grand children namely the second and third petitioners and it was challenged by the second respondent by way of suit which was filed in the year 2017 that too after a period of 6 years from the date of execution of the settlement deed as the Crime is of the year is 2012. The first accused came to know about the fraudulent act of the second respondent and he filed the suit in O.S.No13 of 2008 challenging t