K.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN Vs. B. MANIMOZHIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Original petitions have been seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 420, 448, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioners.

(2.) All the petitioners herein are arrayed as accused in C.C.No.123 of 2026, pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15044 of 2026 is arrayed as A3; the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12717 of 2026 is arrayed as A4; the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2026 is arrayed as A5; and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2026 is arrayed as A6. All the petitioners have filed the respective petitions seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2026 pending before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Since the relief sought for in all these petitions arises out of the same proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all the petitions by way of this common order.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the first accused, in collusion with A2 to A7 and others, fabricated Sale Deed Document No.3994 of 1975 dtd. 20/10/1975 by converting a mortgage deed into a sale deed in the records of the Sub-Registrar Office, Tambaram. It is further alleged that, thereafter, the accused made corrections in the index registers and uploaded the alleged sale deed as a genuine document. Based on the said document, A1 allegedly obtained patta on 18/10/2020 in respect of Survey Nos.230/1B, 125/1A and 125/1C, claiming a total extent of about 123/128 cents, even though no such sale deed was available in the records of the Sub-Registrar Office, Tambaram.