- (1.) THE petitioners in both the quash petitions are arrayed as A4 and A5 in FIR No. 48/2011 dated 5.12.2011 on the file of the first respondent, District Crime Branch, Anti Grabbing Cell, Thanjavur.
(2.) BOTH the petitions are filed to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the ground that the dispute between the defacto complainant and the main accused 1 to 3 was already decided in the patta proceedings and is purely civil in nature and the same is sought to be given criminal colour only to harass the petitioners and amounting to abuse of process of law. The FIR arising out of the complaint, which is sought to be quashed herein, is lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant in respect of the property in question, which was mentioned as 2nd item in the complaint. The complaint proceeds as if the property originally belonged to one M. Samiammal and Subramanian and they sold the property to one V. Pattu Ammal by way of registered sale deed dated 23.6.1970 who inturn sold the same in favour of the defacto complainant under registered sale deed dated 1.2.1985 for valuable sale consideration and the defacto complainant has been since the date of purchase in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property by obtaining mutation in the revenue records and by obtaining patta from the competent authority and A1, who is the vendor of the defacto complainant, along with her sons/A2 and A3 with the assistance of A4 and A5/petitioners herein, conspired among themselves and created fabricated documents dated 11.1.2011 and 24.2.2011 with common intention to grab the properties and cause loss to the defacto complainant and the same amounts to an act of fraud and criminal conspiracy and an act of cheating. The forged documents referred to above in the complaint dated 11.1.2011 and 24.2.2011 are the general power of attorney executed by A1 Pattu, A2 Ilangovan and A3 V. Subramanian in favour of A4 Kaliamurthy and the sale deed executed by A4 Kaliamurthy in favour of A5 Rathinakumar in respect of the property in dispute. According to the petitioners/A4 and A5 herein, A1 to A3 are the legal heirs of the original owner of the property by name Vaithiyalingam since deceased and the document executed by A1 to A3 in favour of A4 is only general power of attorney and the sale deed executed by A4 in favour of A5 is only on the strength of such general power of attorney. It is also their case that the defacto complainant has nothing to do with the property and has come forward with this complaint on the strength of old patta by suppressing the fact that old patta granted in favour of the defacto complainant was already cancelled by the revenue authorities at the instance of A4 power of attorney and the main controversy in issue in the present case is as to who is the actual owner of the property to deal with the same whether Vaithiyalingam or Pattu Ammal and (ii) as to whether the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant allegedly executed by Pattu Ammal conveyed any title to the defacto complainant or not and the same are purely civil in nature to be decided before the appropriate civil forum and are the matters to be decided on appreciation of evidence adduced before the same after full fledged trial.
(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the first respondent State and the learned counsel on record appearing for the second respondent/complainant would seriously oppose the relief by claiming title to the property on the strength of the so called sale deed executed by Pattu Ammal in favour of the defacto complainant/second respondent.;