Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the property which was settled in favour of the first petitioner is only 3 cents by his father but he manipulated by including R.S.No.500 with a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of malafide intention and intended to grab more extent of property, thereafter he executed a settlement deed including R.S.No.500, in favour of his wife/second respondent herein, based upon that the settlement deed, the second petitioner approached the revenue authorities to transfer the same in her favour by ignoring the legal representation of the 3rd respondent, who is original owner of R.S.No.500. So the 3rd respondent, who is a Doctor by profession gave a complaint to the registering authority to enquire about veracity and genuineness of the settlement deed. Accordingly, the Registrar conducted an enquiry on 29.09.2014, in which the first petitioner also appeared but he has not produced the original documents, which was requested by the Registrar, since the original document was not produced. The Sub Registrar concluded that there is some manipulation in the document. The FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The 3rd respondent also enclosed the copy of the documents which was manipulated by the first petitioner as well as the original settlement deed, which was executed by his father.

9. On perusal of the manipulated document, which was annexed in page No.26, dated 07.05.2004, it is seen that the settlement deed is said to be executed by his father viz., T.S.Subramaniam, in favour of the first petitioner. As pointed out by the intervenor's counsel, this document is certified by the Advocate/Notary Public of one Advocate of Perundurai and in that the schedule of property is mentioned as follows:
brhj;J tpguk;
<nuhL hpo bgUe;Jiw rg;o bgUe;Jiw rg;o bgUe;Jiw tl;lk; fUkhz;obry;ypghisak; fpuhkk; g[jpa fr/505 jw;nghija hPr/500 ej;jk; jpUnt';fplk;ghisak; Ch;f;fl;oy/;////////////////// https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of
10. It clearly reveals that in the original document only Survey No.505 has been mentioned whereas in the alleged manipulated document, Re-survey No.500 has been inserted by fraud. Furthermore, the property schedule in original settlement deed differs from the alleged manipulated settlement deed.
11. Based upon the manipulated documents, he executed a settlement deed in favour of wife/first petitioner herein by including S.No.505 and New.S.No.500. Therefore, the petitioners knowing fully well committed fraud by manipulated documents, which resulted in the filing of the charge sheet. Hence, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings. If a man committed fraud, he shall be thrown out at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, pendency of civil suit is not a bar to initiate the criminal proceedings for the reason that the petitioners all these years abused the process of law for their unlawful enrichment.