Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.1. That apart, the second respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sulur, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from any manner not to try to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. In the plaint there is no whisper about the fabrication of life certificate or subsequent deed of conveyance executed in favour of the accused 2 to 4 by the first accused. It shows that the second respondent had introduced a new story of his choice to make out a case for forgery and fabrication of records. After execution of joint development https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) agreement, there was escalation of prices in the real estate as such, the second respondent started given trouble and dragged the project in many ways. In order to stall the entire project, the second respondent filed suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the District Munisif Court, Sulur. In fact, the second respondent also filed an interlocutory application seeking interim injunction in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and the same was dismissed on merits by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2024. Subsequently, the main suit itself is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file comprehensive suit, by an order dated 31.01.2024. After withdrawing the suit, the second respondent lodged the present complaint with new set of allegations.

10. Further already the second respondent filed suit in O.S.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sulur, for permanent injunction as against the petitioner. Along with the suit, the second respondent also filed an application for interim injunction in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 03.01.2024 by the learned District Munsif, Sulur. The only contention of the second respondent in the plaint is that the first petitioner has failed to construct any building in the second respondent's share of 50% land and the first petitioner had constructed house in his share and the same has been sold out in favour of his own family members by three registered sale deeds. There is no whisper about the allegation of fabrication of any life certificate and the forged signature of the second respondent. That apart, even as per the complaint the Doctor, who issued life certificate to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) the second respondent, is very much available in the address mentioned in the certificate.

13. In fact, the first accused company is entitled for 50% of the land and the first accused can deal with the same as per the joint development agreement. Even assuming that there is dispute in respect of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) allotment of share and dealing with the property, no offence is made out as against the petitioners as alleged in the FIR. In fact, after withdrawal of the suit for injunction, the second respondent instituted comprehensive suit in O.S.No.364 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, and it is pending for adjudication. That apart, as per the specific clause in the joint development agreement, the second respondent also initiated proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before this Court for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the issue between the petitioner and the second respondent and it is pending in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.394 of 2024 before this Court.

15. On perusal of the entire allegations in the FIR impugned in this petition, it is understood that the same did not disclose any offence. All the allegations are pertaining to civil dispute between the parties. In fact, the second respondent also filed suit for declaration, declaring that all the sale deed executed in favour of other accused persons as null and void. After having been failed before the civil Court and after dismissal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:46 am ) of the interim injunction application, the second respondent has now resorted to lodge the present complaint upon frustration and as a tool for oppression and harassment of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court has to see that the criminal proceedings are not permitted to be used as a weapon of harassment by instituting the present FIR.