HEMALATHA DEVI Vs. K. M. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 436 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.

(2.) The respondent filed a private complaint after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 202 and 203 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 418 of IPC as against the petitioners herein.

(3.) All the petitioners herein are arrayed as A1 to A5 in the complaint lodged by the respondent herein alleging that the respondent herein is a power of attorney of one Chandru Ramanan, who is working in United Kingdom. He has a share in the joint united family property situated at 146A(2),T.P.Mills Road at Rajapalayam Taluk. There was a dispute between the Principal and the other family members namely the petitioners herein. Thereafter partition suit filed in O.S.No. 136 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur re-numbered as O.S.No.8 of 2020 on the file of the III Fast Track Court,Madurai between the principal of the respondent herein and accused persons. While pending the suit, the accused persons without knowledge of the principal sold out the entire property ofr consideration in favour of one Sankar Ganesh by registered sale deed dated 25.06.2009 in order to grab the entire property. Further alleging that they have given false statement in the sale deed as if the said subject property is free from all encumbrance and no litigation is pending in respect of the subject property. When the partition suit is very much pending on the file of the Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai. Further alleging false statement in the sale deed attracts the offence punishable under Section 82 of the Registration Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially the respondent lodged complaint and the same was registered in Crime No. 146 of 2015 and after detailed enquiry the same was closed. While being so, the learned Magistrate ought not have taken cognizance as against the petitioners herein . Infact already civil Court has taken cognizance in respect of very same property on the file of the VI Additional District Court,Madurai in O.S.No. 7 and 8 of 2010 and entire allegations are civil in nature only and do not attract the offence under Section 418 of IPC. The respondent suppressed the fact that civil suits in O.S. No. 7 and 8 of 2010 are pending at the time of filing complaint. In fact the allegations averred in the sale deed is only statements and it would not attract the offence under Section 82 of Tamil Nadu Registration Act since it is only a recital in the document and also prepared by purchasers.