Judgment :- Common Order The second and third accused in C.C.No.317 of 1994 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee, have preferred Criminal Original Petition Nos.7547 of 2002 and 17563 of 2003, respectively, seeking quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, launched as against the petitioners and others for offences under Sections 467, 471, 472 and 474 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. It is alleged that the complainant Company is the owner of the premises bearing Survey Nos. 17/1, 17/4, 19, 19/1, 19/2, 19/3, 236/6 (part), 227/12 to 30 and 9 (part). 3. It is further alleged that in or about January 1990, the complainant Company came to know that some persons had illegally and without the knowledge of the Company, obtained patta in their favour from the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, for a portion of the Company's property at Adambakkam Village. The bungalow had been illegally and mischievously dismantled and the doors, windows and other fittings and fixtures were all removed. It is further alleged that the complainant Company came to know that the first accused as the agent of Thiruvannamalai Adheenam connived and conspired with the second to seventh accused by fabricating documents and the same were used by the second to seventh accused to obtain patta illegally. 1st, 2nd and 8th accused have connived and conspired to trespass into the Company's land and buildings, it was further contended. 4. The second accused who is the petitioner in Criminal Original Petition No.7547 of 2002 has contended that his father cultivated the lands in Paimash Nos.722, 723/3 and 724 situated at Adambakkam Village as Kudivaramdhar by paying 'kudivaram' to the inamdhar, Kunrakudi Tiruvannamalai Adhinam. The inamdhar recognising the right and interest of the petitioner's father in respect of the said land as Kudivaramdhar issued Muchilika. The second accused inherited the property as the sole legal heir, after the demise of his father. Adhinam issued patta in favour of the second accused on 5/1/1963. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under Tamil Nadu Minor Enams (Abolition) Act by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai and after due enquiry, granted patta bearing No.691 on 18.1.1999 in favour of the second accused. 5. It is further contended that a Civil Suit in O.S.No.1570 of 1990 was filed before the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee against the defacto complainant and an order of injunction was obtained on 18/9/1992. 5. It is further contended that a Civil Suit in O.S.No.1570 of 1990 was filed before the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee against the defacto complainant and an order of injunction was obtained on 18/9/1992. The second accused submits that the complaint is frivolous, mischievous and vexatious. 6. The third accused who is the petitioner in Criminal Original Petition No.17563 of 2003 has contended in the quash petition that he and his predecessors are entitled for possession and enjoyment of Paimash Nos.722/4, corresponding to Survey No.19/2 (part) and 19/3 now bearing T.S.No.3, measuring 1.80 acres situated at Adambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District as Kudivaramdars, paying Melvaram to Kundrakudi Adheenam. The Inamdar issued patta and Muchilika in favour of his predecessors in title recognising their Kudivaram right. The third accused father filed a suit declaration of his title and injunction with respect to the said property as against the defacto complainant and the same reached its finality. Under the above circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint, it is contended. 7. The Court heard the submissions made on either side. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as the civil dispute between the parties relating to the property in question was already decided by the Courts, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee should not have entertained the complaint. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the civil suit between the parties has nothing to do with the allegation of forgery as against the petitioners. As the complaint reflects allegation of forgery, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken cognisance of the criminal case, it is contended. 10. The fact remains that the second accused S.Purushothaman had already filed a suit in O.S.No.1570 of 1990 and obtained interim injunction in the said suit as early as on 18/9/1992, in respect of Paimash Nos.722, 723/3 and 724 at Adambakkam Village and the said order of injunction was not vacated till today. 11. The father of the third accused A.R.Sridharan had filed a suit in O.S.No.919 of 1970 for declaration of title and also for an injunction in respect of Paimash No.579/4 Adambakkam Village and got a declaration and permanent injunction. 12. The respondent/complainant had contested the suit and ultimately his contention was not accepted by the trial Court, Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court of India. 13. 12. The respondent/complainant had contested the suit and ultimately his contention was not accepted by the trial Court, Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court of India. 13. It is not as if the petitioners claimed their right over their property in dispute after they obtained patta from the Assistant Settlement Officer. They had traced their title well beyond the said settlement proceedings initiated by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The Assistant Settlement Officer had issued patta recognising their possession as Kudivaramdhar. 14. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in the civil case pending between the parties has categorically stated in his report filed long prior to the complaint preferred by the petitioner herein that there was no structure found on the property in dispute. 15. Of course, the then District Collector of Kancheepuram had filed a complaint alleging fabrication of records as against the third accused R.Sridharan and others in respect of some other property. The said complaint lodged by the then District Collector, Kancheepuram has no connection with the subject matter of the dispute raised in the present complaint. 16. Of course, the judgment and decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as nullity in the eye of law and the same is always open to challenge. Further obtaining an order from the Court by collusion and fraud, amounts to abuse of judicial process and such an order is liable to be set aside. It has been held by this Court in Jayarama Naidu Vs. Meenakshi Ammal And Another (1999 (I) CTC 566), "it is well settled and fundamental that fraud and collusion in any proceeding before Court or quasi judicial authorities vitiates the very proceedings and they are non est and fraud necessarily renders it null and void." 17. There is no bar for the complainant to challenge the verdict passed by the Civil Court on the plea that a fraud was played upon the Court with forged documents. 18. In this case, the petitioners have traced their title long prior to the issuance of patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The father of the third accused had laid the suit as against the respondent way back in the year 1970 and fought pitched battle and ultimately came out successful obtaining a decree for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction. The father of the third accused had laid the suit as against the respondent way back in the year 1970 and fought pitched battle and ultimately came out successful obtaining a decree for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction. With very vague allegation, the respondent has come out with a private complaint having failed in his attempt to convince the Police authorities to register a case, based on the complaint preferred by him after withdrawing the Criminal original Petition filed before this Court. The Civil Court had thoroughly analysed the history of title and ultimately recorded the finding that the respondent has no title over the property. The respondent having failed in all his attempts has now come out with a vexatious complaint to rope in the petitioners herein, in a case of forgery. 19. The complaint itself would reflect that there is a civil dispute between the parties on account of issuance of patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer in favour of the petitioners herein. Such a dispute had been taken to the Civil Court and the Civil Court has rendered a positive verdict in favour of the petitioners. The party cannot be permitted to wreak vengeance as against the counter party who succeeded before various Civil Courts in the hierarchy in the civil lis laid by him. 20. The Honourable Supreme Court in M.Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh And Another (2001) 8 SUPREME Court Cases 645) has held that mere pendency of a civil suit between the parties cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings initiated against the accused/respondent under Sections 193, 209, 406, 468 and 471 r/w. Section 120 B of I.P.C. In this case, the civil proceedings initiated by the father of the third accused had reached finality. The patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer in favour of the petitioners were challenged by the respondent/complainant. When the title itself has been established in the Civil Courts, challenging the issuance of the patta, the party cannot approach the Criminal Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., to witch hunt the counter party. 21. The Honourable Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. When the title itself has been established in the Civil Courts, challenging the issuance of the patta, the party cannot approach the Criminal Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., to witch hunt the counter party. 21. The Honourable Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M.DEVENDRAPPA AND ANOTHER (2002 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 89) has observed that the High Court should not assume the role of a trial Court and embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of evidence and sustainability of the accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence. In this case, the civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. The complainant has failed to convince not only the Assistant Settlement Officer but also all the Courts in the hierarchy. This Court has not embarked upon an enquiry to test the evidence available. The materials produced before this Court were thoroughly scanned to find whether the complainant misused the process of Court in order to settle personal scores. 22. The Court finds that the respondent/complainant has unnecessarily dragged the petitioners and others out of frustration over the out come of the civil lis brought against him. Such a criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to work hardship not only as against the petitioners herein but also against the other accused in C.C.No.317/94. 23. In the result, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.317 of 1994 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Poonamallee, not only against the second and third accused, but also as against the other accused in the said case, stands quashed and accordingly, Criminal Original Petitions Nos.7547 of 2002 and 17563 of 2003 stand allowed.