ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.1 of 2021, dated 20.01.221 on the file of the CCB Police Station, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District.

2.Earlier, this court heard the matter in detail in the absence of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, by order, dated 14/07/2021 passed a detailed order, by allowing the main criminal original petition. But the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent filed a petition in Crl.MP(MD)No.7683 of 2021 to reopen and rehear the main case, which was disposed of by this court, on 14/07/2021. The said Miscellaneous Petition was allowed by this court, on 01/11/2021 and the matter was reheard by this court.

3.The case of the prosecution on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent is that the disputed property, originally belongs to her father, namely, Palaveshathevar. The following children namely, Muthulakshmi, Balasubramanian, Murugan, Velappan, Andal, Rajeswari, Shanmugaiah and P.Ganesan born to him. He executed a Will in favour of the eighth son, namely, Ganesan on 13.12.1992. According to her, this is a forged Will. So, on the basis of the alleged forged Will, the first accused made a settlement, in favour of the second accused, who is his wife. The second accused, in turn, sold the property, to the third accused. Later, the first accused has executed a settlement, in favour of the fourth accused.

The fourth accused, in turn, sold the property to the second accused. 4.According to the second respondent, all the accused persons have conspired together and indulged in creating forged documents, so as to deprive her lawful right over the property left by her father. Based upon the complaint given by her, originally CSR was registered in CSR.No.676 of 2020 and after preliminary enquiry, a case was registered in Crime No.1 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent herein.

5.The third accused in this case has filed this petition on the ground that he was not all in the picture when the alleged Will was executed by the Palaveshathevar in favour of the first accused and he is the bona fide purchaser for value after perusing all the documents. He purchased the property to an extent of 15.85 cents, as detailed in the sale document for a valuable consideration, on 24.11.2010. According to him, he is in no way connected with the alleged forgery of the Will and a case has been falsely foisted against him .

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

7.For better appreciation, the history of the property is required to be seen briefly:- The property under dispute originally belonged to Palaveshathevar, who is the father of the defacto complainant, the second respondent herein and the first accused. As mentioned earlier, Palaveshathevar had eight children, out of 8 children, he had chosen to execute a Will in favour of the eighth son namely, Ganesan. The second accused is the wife of the first accused and the third accused is the petitioner herein and other accused persons were the subsequent purchasers. The Will dated 13.12.1982, is a registered one. It also contains the signature of Palaveshathevar apart from his left thumb impression. This document is attacked by the defacto complainant/second respondent stating as forged document.

8.Now, one of the children of the said Palaveshathevar namely, Rajeswari, who is the sixth child, filed this complaint. Since it is a registered Will, the first accused executed a settlement in respect of 15.85 cents in favour of the second accused on 31.08.2010. This is a registered document. Later, patta was transferred to the second accused on 19.10.2010 and later, on 24.11.2010, the petitioner purchased the said property from the second accused. So, it appears that after a gap of above 18 years, the transaction took place.