PAVANKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 31 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Ss. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 506(ii) of IPC.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both petitions submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A7 in Crime No. 31 of 2018 registered on the complaint lodged by the second respondent for the offences under Ss. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 506(ii) of IPC. The allegations made in the complaint are that the second respondent/ defacto complainant is an agriculturist by profession and indulged in the activity of cultivating various crops in his land in S.No.2/3B2, situated at Vilangurichi Village, Coimbatore District ad measuring to an extent of 1.10 acres. While being so, various persons had visited his property and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the first accused claimed ownership of the said property and sold out some plots to the accused 2 to 4 herein. The first accused filed a suit in O.S. No. 286 of 2016 and obtained an ex-parte order and on the strength of the ex-parte decree, he mutated all the revenue records in his favour. Thereafter, the first accused created false documents and on the basis of the same, he obtained patta. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that the second respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the property ad-measuring at 1.10 acres comprised in old S.R. No. 2/3 and new S.F. No. 2/3B, situated at Vilankurichi Village by virtue of sale deed dtd. 30/9/1996 and the same was also registered in Doc. No. 3218 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Registrar Officer, Ganapathy. All the accused persons had conspired together with intention to grab the property, had created and fabricated the documents as if the said property belonged to the first petitioner/first accused and paid sale consideration every month from 1/1/2011 and also executed sale deed in favour of the other accused persons, on the strength of the ex-parte decree obtained by him. Thereafter, the first petitioner/first accused mutated all the revenue records in his favour and the same was under challenge before the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore. All the accused persons are colluded with each other and conspired together and obtained exparte decree on the strength of the fabricated, false document and executed sale deed. The said ex-parte order passed in O.S. No. 286 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore is under challenge in O.S. No. 1415 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Coimbatore. Therefore, there are materials to connect the offence as registered by the first respondent as against the petitioners. He further submitted that the FIR cannot be quashed on its threshold and it has to be investigated further. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.