Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.5950 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Crime Branch CB CID Cases, under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) I.P.C.

O R D E R

The petitioner / accused in C.C.No.5950 of 2023, facing charges for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) IPC, has filed this quash petition.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, Niranjana Devi, daughter of Chandrasekaran, states that Chandrasekaran had purchased the property in the year 1992 in Seetharam Nagar, Velachery, measuring 1722 sq.ft in Plot No.29 from one Krishnan and others, vide Document No.1100/1992 dated 31.03.1992. Chandransekaran’s wife, Thillainayaki had one daughter, namely Niranja Devi. Thillainayaki passed away in the year 1975. Thereafter, in the year 1982, Chandrasekaran contracted a second marriage with Vijayalakshmi and through the said marriage, a son by name, Ponraj was born. Chandrasekaran died in the year 1988 and his legal heirs, namely Vijayalakshmi, Niranjana Devi and Ponraj, were receiving the pension amount. Ponraj died in the year 2008 as a bachelor. Thereafter, Vijayalakshmi and Niranjana Devi became the surviving legal heirs.

It is further alleged that Vijayalakshmi was doing joint business with Jermina/A2 and who had devised a plan and applied for a legal heir certificate, by projecting as though only Vijayalakshmi and Ponraj were the legal heirs. Based on the same, they obtained legal heir Certificate No.20568/ 2012 dated 11.07.2012. Using the said legal heir certificate, Vijayalakshmi claimed that the property belonged to her alone and executed a sale deed in favour of her sister/A2, Jermina vide Document No.3473/2012 on 16.07.2012. On the very same day, A2, Jermina executed a settlement deed in favour of Vijayalakshmi/A1 vide Document No.3475/2012. Using the said settlement document, a sale deed was executed on 29.10.2012 in favour of Hariharan and Hemamalini for a sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores. Hence, Neeranjana Devi lodged a complaint and a case in Crime No.490 of 2013 came to be registered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are relatives known to each other. In fact, the petitioner is the stepmother of the defacto complainant. The only mistake was that while obtaining the legal heir certificate, there was some confusion. Further, though the petitioner had a right over the property, the petitioner’s sister / A2, Jermina had created documents projecting as though the petitioner was the exclusive legal heir of Chandrasekaran and the absolute owner of the property, which resulted in confusion.

It was further submitted that Chandrasekaran had some more properties in Namakkal and the dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was subsequently resolved by segregating the properties. The defacto complainant approved the sale of the Velachery property by executing a ratification deed and likewise, the Namakkal properties were settled in favour of the defacto complainant by the petitioner through a release deed. Thus, the entire issue stood resolved during mediation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. As regards A2, she is none other than the sister of the petitioner and her present whereabouts are not known to the petitioner. The defacto complainant also has no serious objection for quashing the case against A2.

The learned Senior Counsel for the defacto complainant did not dispute the contentions raised by the petitioner and further submitted that during the pendency of case in C.C.No.5950 of 2023, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of the High Court. During the mediation held on 18.03.2024, the dispute was resolved and a joint compromise memo was filed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that the iss