J. NAGAKESARI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While Crl. O.P. No. 14654 of 2013 is filed by A3 to A10 Crl. O.P. No. 29393 of 2013 is filed by A1 and A2 in Cr. No. 175 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent/Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them on the basis of the complaint dated 07.12.2012 given to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai by the second respondent/defacto complainant. The FIR in Cr. No. 175 of 2013 proceeds to say that the father of the defacto complainant by name Deivasagayam who was doing real estate business, entered into a sale agreement during 1987 with one G.K. Dasaratha Reddiar in respect of his properties in Villivakkam, Konnur Village and in respect of the property in S. No. 193/4 (193/2A) measuring 8 grounds 512 sq. ft. and Dasaratha Reddiar died in 1988 and thereafter they obtained General Power of Attorney in respect of property in S. No. 193/4. The legal heirs of Dasaratha Reddiar having obtained entire sale consideration and executed an undertaking on 28.12.1989 stating that the entire A schedule property belongs to Deivasagayam and thereafter the father of the defacto complainant also purchased the property situated in S. No. 192/2 from one Authimoolam and Victor. Thereafter the father of the defacto complainant had been in possession and enjoyment of properties comprised in S. No. 193/4 (193/2A) and 193/2B. It is further alleged in the complaint that after the death of the father, the defacto complainant has come to know through encumbrance certificate that one lease deed was executed by one Nagakesari of St. Joesph Charity Trust in favour of his son Sam Britan for 30 years in respect of the land situated in S. No. 193/4. It is further revealed that one of the legal heirs of Dasaratha Reddiar by name Ramalingam has also executed a release deed in favour of his sister Buvaneswari in respect of the properly sold to his father and Buvaneswari in turn has executed a gift deed in favour of her husband Lakshmipathy and Lakshmipathy has executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Durairaj in order to help Nagakesari and Sam Britan. Thus Buvaneswari, Ramalingam and Lakshmipathy have created forged documents in respect of the property in question and when they were questioned by the defacto complainant they threatened the defacto complainant. The allegation raised in the complaint in short are to the effect that all the accused in order to receive personal gain joined together and created forged documents to grab the entire property belonging to the defacto complainant. The complaint was registered as Cr. No. 175 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 120(b) IPC. Pending investigation into both the FIRs, A1 and A2 and A3 to A10 have come forward with the present criminal original petitions for quashing the same.

(2.) According to the petitioners, there are already civil proceedings initiated by different set of claimants in respect of the same property and the civil proceedings are now pending at the stage of second appeals and the dispute between the parties is more of civil in nature, involving the issue relating to right, title and interest over the property in question and pending the civil proceedings, the criminal complaint suppressing the pendency of the same cannot be entertained. It is also contended by them that the allegations raised in the complaint based on which FIR is registered against the accused do not disclose the ingredients attracting any IPC offences against any of the petitioners. It is argued herein that in the event of the criminal proceedings being allowed to go on, it will amount to abuse of process of law and it is likely to prejudice the petitioners and likely to prejudice their claim in the civil proceedings.

(3.) The relief sought for in both the criminal original petitions are seriously opposed by the first respondent/IO as well as the defacto complainant/second respondent.