Judgment :- 1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this petition has been preferred by the petitioner to call for the records in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 from the file of the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same. 2. The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the petition may be summarised as under. 2.1. The petitioner along with three other accused has been facing charges under Sections 416, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 460 of IPC, in connection with the case in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 on the file of the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The case of the prosecution is that the property in question was in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the complainant which was acquired by him under proper sale deeds. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with other accused with the intention of grabbing the property measuring 34.04 acres comprised in different Survey Nos. Viz., 230/3, 203/4, 203/8, 227/2(P), 230/1, 230/7A, 227/3, 229/2, 230/2, 230/5, 230/6 from the possession of the complainant, had created forged and fabricated documents and filed civil litigation before the Court in order to usurp the properties of the complainant to make wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant and thus the petitioner along with the other accused had cheated the complaint to the police. 3. Mr.N.R.Elango, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one Adhikesavan and 20 others are the joint owners of the property in question and that they had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioner to deal with those properties. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the case in C.C.No.2878 of 2005 had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner on 10.04.2002 in respect of the property in question and paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards the advance on the date of agreement. It was agreed between both the parties that the sale deed shall be executed on or before 31.03.2003 in favour of the above said accused 1 and 2 as the time is the essence of contract. It was agreed between both the parties that the sale deed shall be executed on or before 31.03.2003 in favour of the above said accused 1 and 2 as the time is the essence of contract. Since the agreement of sale was not able to be completed within the stipulated time the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh was returned back to the above said persons by the petitioner and therefore, the agreement of sale had become un-executable due to efflux of time. 4. The petitioner had filed a claim petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai. Apart from this he had also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8643 of 1998 for a direction to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously and accordingly the writ petition was also allowed. But the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai was rejected and hence he had filed another writ petition in W.P.No.14267 of 1998 before this Court. In the said writ petition this petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority and accordingly the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavore and that appeal was also rejected on 10.11.1998. Again the petitioner had filed a revision before the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai challenging the said order. That revision was allowed on 05.07.199 on merits and it was declared that the petitioner is entitled to have patta for the property to an extent of 1.76 acres comprised in Survey No.229/1A and 3 acres in Survey No.230/7A. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, was reversed by the Special Commissioner of Land Administration. 5. In the interregnum, the complainant to the police viz., the second respondent herein, had filed a writ petition in W.P.5668 of 1999 and that writ petition was also dismissed on 20.04.1999. 5. In the interregnum, the complainant to the police viz., the second respondent herein, had filed a writ petition in W.P.5668 of 1999 and that writ petition was also dismissed on 20.04.1999. The learned senior counsel has also contended that the second respondent in this petition, who is the complainant in the case in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 (Crime No.657 of 2002) had claimed that he had purchased the entire property including the property in question and that in order to drive out the real owners of the property and also to squat on the property belonging to the petitioner he had filed the private complaint before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the same was referred to the concerned police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for enquiry and report. Only on that basis the case in Crime No.657 of 2002 was registered against the petitioner and other accused under Section 416, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. 6. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that neither the first information report nor the charge sheet which has been filed in this case contain the basic ingredients to make out the alleged offences and that the petitioner is unnecessarily impleaded in this case only for the purpose of grabbing the property in question from the petitioner. It is further submitted that as revealed from the charge sheet the prosecution witnesses 1 and 2 alone have spoken to about the ownership of the land. The learned senior counsel has also drawn this Court's attention to the additional typed set of papers containing the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration, Affidavit in writ petition No.12613 of 2001 as well as the order in W.P.M.P.No.75 of 2008 in W.P.No.12613 of 2001. 7. Admittedly the charge sheet was filed in this case as early as on 24.03.2006 and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 on the file of the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. This petition for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 was filed on 26.08.2010, almost after 4 years from the date of filing of the charge sheet. 8. In support of his submissions the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929. 8. In support of his submissions the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929. In this case the High Court had dismissed the plea of the first accused therein for quashing the criminal complaint. Under this circumstance an appeal was preferred before the apex court by the appellant and under the given circumstance a question was arisen before the Division Bench of Apex Court as to whether the first accused had committed an Act of forgery even if the facts alleged by the second respondent therein were accepted as true. 9. While penning down the judgment His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V.Raveendran has held that; "8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are esentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. A reference was made to the decision in G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513 and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 :(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188." 10. The learned additional public prosecutor has submitted that a sum of Rs.95 lakhs is involved in this case and that the inherent jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the proviso to Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised at present that too, after 4 years of filing of the charge sheet. 11. The learned additional public prosecutor has submitted that a sum of Rs.95 lakhs is involved in this case and that the inherent jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the proviso to Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised at present that too, after 4 years of filing of the charge sheet. 11. The petitioner as admitted in his petition that one Adhikesavan and 20 others are the joint owners of the property in question and that they had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and on the strength of the power of attorney, he had entered into an agreement of sale with the accused 1 and 2 in the criminal case in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 which is sought to be quashed in this petition.On the other hand the complainant to the police viz., the second respondent herein, has claimed that he is the original owner of the property under a valid and proper title deeds measuring about 34.04 acres in different survey numbers and that the petitioner along with other accused with an evil intention of grabbing the property had created forged and fabricated documents and also filed civil litigation before various forums including the High Court. 12. It is pertinent to note here that the second accused had already filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.5681 of 2007 to call for the records in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 from the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same. On hearing both sides, that petition was dismissed by this Court on 11.03.2009. 13. This Court has carefully perused the materials available on records and considered the submission made on behalf of both sides. As observed in the above referred case in Crl.O.P.No.5681 of 2007, this Court is of the view that the proceedings in C.C.No.2878 of 2006, cannot be stalled by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. While disposing of this petition, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant that the case in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 is now pending before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Chennai and that they need some time stipulation for the disposal of the case expeditiously. 15. While disposing of this petition, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant that the case in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 is now pending before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Chennai and that they need some time stipulation for the disposal of the case expeditiously. 15. Considering the representation made by the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Chennai is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.2878 of 2006 within a steel framed time of four months under intimation to this Court. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.