STEPHEN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THROUGH ITS, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID SOUTH, KANYAKUMARI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.1 of 2024 for offences under Ss. 120(B), 416, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), have filed the quash application, invoking Sec. 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking orders to quash the proceedings in the above said crime number.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent (the de-facto complainant) lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Earlier, a case in Crime No.53 of 2015 was registered by the District Crime Branch, which was later transferred to the present respondent's file on the orders of this Court. Subsequently, Crime No.1 of 2024 was registered.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the de- facto complainant, after the death of her husband, was without proper guidance and, in haste, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners had committed forgery. It was pointed out to the de-facto complainant that her late husband had previously executed a registered Power of Attorney (Document No.128 of 2011). Based on the said power and authorization, the sale deed was executed, and the de-facto complainant's husband was aware of the transaction and had received a payment. Now, the de-facto complainant, having realized the value of the property, has agreed to a compromise, provided the payment is made according to the market value.