A.MARIAPPAN Vs. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that A1 forged the document of the defacto complainant and executed sale deed in favour of the third parties. The petitioners arrayed as A2 and A3, who are the witnesses to the execution of the said document. Hence the complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in S.No.172/5 measuring 1 acre 59 cents, situated at Pappakudi Village, Sathoor Taluk, Virudhunagar District, was sold by A1 to A4. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the said property is owned by his grandfather namely Muthu Muruga Konar, and hence he informed the same to A1. Immediately A1 cancelled the sale deed executed by him in favour of A4 and subsequently, the defacto complainant was put in possession. The petitioners herein are the witnesses for the execution of the sale deed and also for cancellation of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the name of A1's grandfather and the defacto complainant's grandfather are one and the same and the land owned by A1 is stated to be situated adjacent to the land of the defacto complainant. Therefore a mistake had occurred due to error in mentioning the survey number of the land while execution of the sale deed. After coming to know about the said error, A1 immediately cancelled the sale deed executed by him and set right the mistake. He further submitted that the dispute is between the defacto complainant, and A1, A4 and A5. The petitioners/A2 and A3, being the witnesses of the documents both the execution and cancellation of the sale deed, have no knowledge about the contents of the documents, truth or falsity of the same. More over, once the defect was set right, the right of the defacto complainant is no way prejudiced. Therefore, a criminal complaint is not maintainable and the trial is unwarranted. The conduct of A1 and endeavour taken by him, after knowing the mistake, by cancelling the sale deed, would go to show that A1 is obvious to settle the issue and to put an end to that. Strangely, the defacto complainant with an ulterior motive proceeded to gave a complaint after getting the right of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this Court vide order dated, 02.12.2009, in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10867 of 2009, quashed the proceedings in respect of A4 and A5. If the criminal prosecution is allowed to be proceeded against the petitioner, they would be compelled to undergo the ordeal of trial for no indulgence by them. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing the proceedings against them.