Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Crimeal Procedure to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.61 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam and to quash the same.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.61 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 417 read with 34 of IPC, 120(b), 420, 423 and 471 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the accused had pretended as if they are the owners of the land comprised in T.S.No.1592, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 situated at Public Office Road, Nagoore, (Ward 6, Block 28), Nagapapttinam District. It is further alleged that the 1st accused claimed to be the owner of the property and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd respondent, in turn the 2nd petitioner had executed an Agreement of Sale with the accused No.3 herein and registered in Document No.1873/2011 dated 14.12.2011. The accused 1 and 2 had no title over the property and even though knowing well they had executed a Power of Attorney and turned as a power holder and entered intoAgreement of Sale in respect of the accused 3 to 6. On receipt of the said complaint, the 1st respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.7/2012 for the offences punishable under Section Sections 465, 468, 417 read with 34 of IPC, 120(b), 420, 423 and 471 of IPC. After completion of investigation filed a final report and taken cognizance before the Trial Court.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 to 6. It is the second quash petition and it is very much maintainable. The first quash petition filed by the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21461 of 2014 was dismissed by an order dated 25.01.2023 as there was no change of material circumstances. The Tahsildar, Nagapattinam, by its communication dated 31.01.2023 recommended for issuance of patta in favour of the 1st accused. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated 25.01.2023 directed both the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Therefore, it is made clear that if a civil dispute is pending between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent in respect of title over the property, there is no question of any offence being committed by the petitioners. He further submitted that the accused 1 and 2 claim to be the owners of the properties and they had entered into an Agreement of Sale with the respondents 3 to 6 herein. They are the bonafide purchasers who intended to purchase the property on the basis of the documents of the year 1918 and 1924 including the revenue records in 2006. Further, the 2nd accused has filed O.S.No.102 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, which is pending.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the 2nd respondent has claimed title over the property from the year 1974. The 2nd accused purchased the subject property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. In order to show the bonafide, the petitioners adduced the 1st accused to execute a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd respondent, in turn, the 2nd respondent executed the Agreement of Sale with the accused 3 to 6 herein registered in Doc.No.1873/2011 dated 14.12.2011. Further, he submitted that the 2nd respondent had no title, since the first quash petition dismissed on merits and also there is a triable issue and the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are factual in nature and it requires appropriation of evidence.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent contended that both the parties are claiming title over the suit property. The petitioners are claiming title over the property vide documents of th