The petitioner/Accused No.2 has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, Tiruvellore District in C.C.No. 355 of 1996 on his file and quash the proceedings therein so far as it relates to the petitioner herein.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint with the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, Tiruvellore District in C.C.No. 355 of 1996 against three accused persons namely A1, the father of the complainant, A2, the brother of the complainant and A3, the uncle of the complainant for an alleged offence under
Sections 467 of IPC and 467 r/w 109 of IPC.
3. The complainant submits that the Land measuring 42 Cents comprised in S.No. 23/3C at Peruncheri Village, coming under Thatchoor Group I Revenue Village is the ancestral property and inherited by the accused 1, accused 2 and the complainant herein. The above mentioned land happens to be the Joint family property and the complainant has got undivided 1/3 Share in the same.
4. While so, the accused No.1 approached the complainant and demanded him to sign in the Sale Deed to be executed for the above S.No.23/3C for which the complainant did not accept. So, with the help of A3, A1 and A2 have gone to the extent of forging his signature in the Sale Deed and the same was executed and registered in the name of Subash Chandra Goel and Sons residing at No.1/237, East Coast Road, Madras-41. It is alleged by the petitioner that he had come to know that A3 had forged his signature in the document and the said document dated 25.09.1995 has been registered as document No.438 of 1995 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office at Ponneri. It is alleged that the 1st and the 2nd accused received Rs.18,600/- for above as Sale consideration from Subhash Chandra Goel. The complainant had issued Advocate notice dated 24.11.1995 to the Accused No.1 and 2, the purchaser Subhash Chandra goel and the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri. Only the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri received his notice and the other three are evading to receive notice. The complainant alleges that he is taking steps to file partition suit before Civil Court. The complainant further submits that as he has not signed in the Sale Deed, the said Sale in favour of Subhash Chandra Goel and Sons is not valid and does not bind the complainant.
5. Therefore, the complainant has alleged that the accused No.3 has committed offence under
Section 467 of IPC, since he forged the signature of complainant and that Accused 1 and 2 committed the offence under
Section 467 r/w 109 of IPC as they abetted A3 to prepare the forged document. The learned Magistrate has taken the above complaint on his file as C.C.No. 355 of 1996. The complainant, in support of his claim, has filed 5 documents and mentioned 5 witnesses including himself.
6. The petitioner/accused 3 in his counter has submitted that the allegations in the complaint is purely Civil in nature and the ingredients of the offence under
Section 467 of IPC are not made out. The petitioner further contends that as he is one of the co-owners of the said land, the selling of the property is not an offence and it is only Civil in Nature and in case, any of the family members are aggrieved, they have to approach the Civil Court for partition of the property. Further, the petitioner contends that only A3 had sold the undivided share of the property of the defacto complainant to some other third party and that there is no specific overt act attributed as against the petitioner herein.
7. The petitioner submits that a Civil Suit is pending before the learned District Munsif, Ponneri and the same is pending in O.S.No. 175 of 2002 regarding the same property which is the subject matter of the Criminal case and in order to harass and humiliate the petitioner herein a false complaint has been given.
8. Therefore, the petitioner contends that as there is no overt act alleged on the part of the petitioner, the entire proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.
9. The complainant/respondent has filed Criminal Original Petition No.24597 of 2007 to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate passed in C.C.No. 355 of 1996 and get expert opinion of the Finger Print Bureau. This Criminal Original Petition has been allowed. This is a connected matter.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to determine the genuineness of the Sale Deed, the matter has to be adjudicated, in the interest of Justice to be meted out to the parties. So, the Criminal Original Petition No.23458 of 2007 has got to be dismissed. Accordingly, it dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
mps/mra To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, Tiruvellore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 104