This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the F.I.Rdated 25.01.2007 in Cr.No.156 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent.The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition would run thus:Cr.No.156 of 2007 came to be registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and477-A, I.P.C, based on the complaint of the Tahsildhar as against thepetitioners herein.The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the allegations as against thepetitioners are that as the power of attorney of some persons who are not realowners of the Government lands measuring 6 cents, he has chosen to enter into anagreement to sell with third parties by indulging in forgery and in fabricatingdocuments.The petitioner also committed similar offences relating to theGovernment lands.Based on that, the first petitioner was arrested and releasedon bail.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the action taken by thepolice, this petition is focussed on the main grounds as under:The petitioners/A.1 and A.2 did not sell any area in S.No.134/2 or in anyother sub division.The second petitioner herein, is the power of attorney ofone Mrs.The Natham settlementPatta No.575 issued by the Special Tahsildhar, stands in the names of the saidThangaraj and Veeranan in respect of the said 3 cents.So far no sale deed hasbeen executed by the petitioner on the strength of the power deeds and there isonly an agreement to sell exits and now it is also barred by limitation.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit at the time ofargument that those two persons they purchased it from one Balu who got the samefrom Lakshmana Pillai who was awarded with that land by the British Governmentfor his meritorious service.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would address this court on themain ground that absolutely there is no prima facie case made out in the F.I.Rand there is no question of cheating any one based on the agreement to sell.Neither the Tahsildhar nor the Government was approached so as to cause loss toany one.Accordingly, he prays for quashing the F.I.R.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would reiterate what are allfound specified in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildhar.The warp andwoof of the counter is that after obtaining permission from the Collector only,the complaint was lodged; when the first petitioner on 25.01.2007 with anintention to get round seal with State emblem in a patta pass book, approachedthe Tahsildhar; the latter on seeing the forged signature of the Tahsildhar inthat patta pass book, developed suspicion and probed into the matter andthereby, informed the Collector, Madurai about it and on his instructions, heenquired with his officials and also with the officials of the RegistrationDepartment and found out that the first petitioner is involved in committing thecrimes of grabbing and scrounging the Government Poramboke lands especially, inS.No.134/2 of Madurai North Taluk, which is classified as Pudhukulam kanmaiPoramboke.It has to be seen at this juncture, whether there is any material toquash the F.I.R and the related proceedings?The perusal of the F.I.R would show that the Tahsildhar levelledallegations as against the first petitioner herein that he with the criminalintention, entered into agreement to sell with third parties so as to sell theGovernment land in the said Survey Number.It is also the allegation of theTahsildhar that the first petitioner only indulged in various other activitiesof fabricating pattas by forging the signatures of Revenue officials, etc.The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for thepetitioners is that Section 420 I.P.C is in no way attracted as mere agreementto sell between the power of attorneys and third parties would not attractSection 420 I.P.C; the Tasildhar is not at all in any way concerned with this,whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has correctly answered thatonce Government land is being attempted to be alienated by fabricatingdocuments, the Tahsildhar who is responsible for looking after the Governmentlands is entitled to lodge a complaint and in this case, the Tahsildhar lodgedthe complaint with the permission of the Collector.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is nofile relating to sanction.If that be so, there should be properevidence on that score and necessary expert opinion would also be required.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that thewitnesses who are examined by the police disowned their signatures in therelevant pattas and their statements have also been recorded.The Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned should call for the filefrom the Inspector of Police concerned and take up further investigation andduring such investigation, due opportunity should be given to the petitionersfor producing documents and the opinion of the hand writing expert shall beobtained and the matter should be processed accordingly.The learned Counsel for the petitioners in an extempore manner wouldpray that since this matter involves the future and welfare of the secondpetitioner, a time frame may be fixed to complete the investigation.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code