1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14 .09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8613 of 2011 S.M.Vairavan : Petitioner Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3. N.N.Swaminathan Chettiar 4. K.Chokkalingam : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register F.I.R. against the respondents 3 and 4 herein and other culprits on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein dated 07.01.2011 and investigate the same in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.S.veeranasamy For Respondents : Mrs.Prabha, Govt. Advocate (Criminal side) for RR1 & 2 : Mr.V.Nagendran for R3 & R4 O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register F.I.R. against the respondents 3 and 4 herein and other culprits on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein dated 07.01.2011 and investigate the same in accordance with law. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Scientist cum Senior Engineer in ISRO, Sathish Dhawan Space Centre, SHAR, Sriharikotta from 26.06.1973 and retired from service on 31.03.2006. He would further submit that he possessed ancestral land, which is originally https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 belonged to his grand father one Nachiappan @ Annamalai Chettiar and he had three sons viz., Somasundaram Chettiar, the father of the petitioner, Lakshmanan Chettiar and Swaminathan Chettiar, who is the 3rd respondent herein. He would further submit that the petitioner's father died in the year 1966 and in the year 1950, there was a partition between the father of the petitioner and his junior paternal uncle and during that partition, 'D' 'E' and 'F' have been retained as common properties. After the death of his mother, the petitioner requested the 3rd respondent herein to divide the common properties and allot the share of the petitioner, however, he has not taken any steps and hence, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.364 of 2008 for partition, which is pending. But, the 3rd respondent created forged receipts dated 06.07.2001 stating that the petitioner has relinquished his right of the ancestral house after receipt of Rs.1,85,000/- and also he filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 2010 for specific performance, which is also pending. Therefore, the petitioner has given a criminal complaint on 07.01.2011 before the 1st respondent and they issued acknowledgement, but they failed to register the F.I.R to take action and hence, the petitioner has come forward with the application for the relief stated earlier. 3. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) has filed the status report stating that the civil suit in O.s.No.364 of 2008 is pending before the Subordinate Judge, Madurai regarding the alleged property and other immovable properties against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has also filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.167 of 2010, which is also pending before the Sub Court, Devakottai regarding the money transaction between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Since it is a civil dispute, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that he is ready to abide the order of this Court. 4. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that he has not committed any criminal offence. In June 2001, the petitioner has approached him and offered to sell his undivided share of their ancestral property, a house and garden situated in Kallal village, for a sale amount of Rs.1,85,000/- and he is ready to purchase the same and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on his oral sale agreement and he received a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 09.06.2001 and issued a receipt in his own handwriting and accepted the previous payment of Rs.50,000/- and further he received a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 06.07.2001 from him and made an endorsement. Further, on 18.08.2001, he has received a sum of Rs.30,000/- and agreed to execute the sale deed after his retirement and arrival to his home town. He would further state that even though the petitioner had retired in the year 2007, he has not executed the sale deed and hence, he filed O.S.No.167 of 2010 for specific performance and since, the issue is relating to civil dispute, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 5. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. The petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 are the co-owners of the property. Admittedly, as per the version of both sides, the petitioner herein filed a suit for partition and the 3rd respondent herein has filed a suit for specific performance and the same are pending. The genuineness of the receipts to be decided in the civil forum. Since, civil suits are pending, the respondent police have not registered the case. 7. In such circumstances, since civil suits are pending, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to give a direction to register a case against the 3rd and 4th respondent and the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to workout his remedy. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8613 of 2011 14.09.2011 Arul NSV/26.9.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/