An FIR disclosing prima facie cognizable offences, such as forgery and criminal conspiracy, should not be quashed at the threshold stage under Section 482 CrPC solely because of a parallel civil suit or a claim of being a bona fide purchaser.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.9 of 2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent.

2. On the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent has registered an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of IPC, alleging that the 2^nd respondent’s family owned the property comprised in S.Nos.12/403, 12/404, 12/405, Plot Nos.338, 339 & 371, to an extent of 52,800 sq.ft., situated at Panaiyur, Sholinganallur Revenue Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District. It is alleged that the legal heirs viz., Raghuraman and Yedasammal conspired with one Sathyaraj, Natarajan and others, and with the help of other unknown accused persons, created forged and manipulated documents in their favour as if the aforesaid property has been purchased by the father of Raghuraman viz., Perumalsamy Naidu, in the year 1966, and the same was registered vide Doc.No.4279 of 1966 dated 16.12.1966.

2.1 Therefore, the 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint before the District Registrar, seeking a declaration that the documents registered in favour of the said Perumalsamy Naidu, were fraudulent. The District Registrar, by order dated 11.03.2022, found that the documents registered in favour of Perumalsamy Naidu, were fraudulent and forged. Consequently, all subsequent documents registered on the strength of the sale deed dated 16.12.1966, were also found to be fraudulent and were cancelled. The District Registrar, Chennai (South), directed the Sub-Registrar, Neelankarai to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 against the accused for creating fraudulent documents.

3. It is further submitted that one of the purchasers filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration against the order passed by the District Registrar, Chennai. The said appeal was dismissed and the Deputy Inspector General of Registration also found that the document standing in the name of Perumalsamy Naidu, was fraudulent and forged, thereby, confirming the order passed by the District Registrar, vide proceedings dated 13.10.2022. The said Perumalsamy Naidu had died on 27.06.1973. After his demise, Raghuraman and Yedesammal allegedly obtained a forged legal heirship certificate dated 05.03.2013, as if they were the legal heirs of Perumalsamy Naidu, which was issued by the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District, that too, after a lapse of nearly 40 years. The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti is also stated to have clarified that the said legal heirship certificate had not been issued by the competent authority.

3.1 Further, as against the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration dated 13.10.2022, and the District Registrar, dated 11.03.2022, one of the purchasers filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.29310 of 2022. Pending the said writ petition, this Court, by order dated 17.03.2023, directed two documents to be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad, for examination and expert opinion. The CFSL, after examination, submitted its report dated 18.04.2023, wherein it was categorically found that the document in favour of Vimalan Brothers, namely, the title document of the 2^nd respondent, was genuine. Further, the Forensic laboratory report revealed that the signature of P.Ganesan, and the signature of Sub Registrar, Neelankarai, namely the Registering Authority, were found to show that the documents were forged. Thereafter, this Court dismissed the said writ petition and directed the authorities to take action against the