ORDER 1.1 The petitioner is 4th accused in Cr. No. 342 of 2007 on the file of the Kodaikanal Police Station. One Unnikrishnan has lodged the complaint, who is Power of Attorney for 11 persons who are legal heirs of P. Gerald Walter and his wife Ms. Teresa G. Walter. In the complaint he has alleged that Ms. Theresa G. Walter had purchased the properties on 22.12.1959 in T.S. Nos. 62, 64 and 65. She was in possession of 8.50 acres in T.S. No. 67/1, which are situate in Vilpatti Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. She appointed her son H.J. Walter as Power Agent who executed 3 sale deeds on 5.8.1987, 10 cents in S.F. No. 686/2 and New T.S. No. 65 with a right of pathway through T.S. No. 70 was sold to this petitioner. The father of the petitioner purchased 25 cents in T.S. No. 66. Another 25 cents was sold to one Jagadeesan in T.S. No. 66. On the strength of Power of Attorney given by his mother, H.J. Walter, on 17.3.1987, sold 61 cents in T.S. No. 62 to Santha Shobana. 1.2 All the remaining properties were in possession of Ms. Teresa G. Walter. The father of the petitioner by name Santha Gunam was very much attached to Ms. Teresa G. Walter. On 21.5.1991 she executed a Will bequeathing all her properties to all her 11 children. After her death they became absolute owners of the properties. No partition was effected between them. The family members of Santha Gunam conspired together with an intention to create documents and records over the properties entrusted to them in good faith. They transferred the patta in their names by fraudulent means with the help of revenue officials by furnishing forged documents and details for the properties belonging to the heirs of Ms.Teresa G. Walter. Saraswathi wife of Santha Gunam based on the patta, fraudulently transferred the title in her name and mortgaged the property in T.S. No. 70 with the Kodaikanal Co-operative Urban Bank Limited for Rs. 4,90,000/- on 11.3.2002. The other accused also have indulged in the criminal activities of fabricating the records with respect to the properties belonging to Mrs.Teresa G. Walter. Following is the rank of the accused in F.I.R. 1. Santha Gunam (died) 2. Saraswathi Santha Gunam 3. Satish 4. Santha Sobana 5. Santha Soruban 6. Jagadeesan 7. Thangamayan 8. Kuppusamy 9. N. Serman 10. The other accused also have indulged in the criminal activities of fabricating the records with respect to the properties belonging to Mrs.Teresa G. Walter. Following is the rank of the accused in F.I.R. 1. Santha Gunam (died) 2. Saraswathi Santha Gunam 3. Satish 4. Santha Sobana 5. Santha Soruban 6. Jagadeesan 7. Thangamayan 8. Kuppusamy 9. N. Serman 10. S. Rajrathinam 1.3 The respondent police filed charge sheet after investigation against the accused under Sections 420 , 406 , 465, 467, 4678, 471, 474 read with 120(B) I.P.C. The case has been taken on file in C.C. No. 12 of 2008 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. 2. Pending the hearing, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C, for discharge from the case, in which he has alleged the following: 2.1 The transactions are completely civil in nature and the contemporaneous documentary evidence clearly shows that it is civil transaction. There is no iota of material in getting petitioner and his family members into the commission of offence. The de facto complainant has no locus standi to set the criminal law in motion. The legal heirs of Ms. Teresa G. Walter alone are the competent persons to question the validity of documents in possession of the accused. The Power of Attorney would not make the holder to lay complaint. He may not have sufficient knowledge. He has called in question the transactions took place between the year 2001 and 2002 and the power of attorney was given to him only in 2007 and hence he has no personal knowledge of the transactions. 2.2 The petitioner is neither a party in anyone of the transactions nor any overt act attributed against him touching the penal provisions in the charge. Hence, compelling him to face the order of trial would not arise. When there is no sufficient ground to proceed further, the Judicial Magistrate has to discharge him. The petitioner claims lawful title over the properties in question. The allegation whether the legal heirs of T.G. Walter were deceived can only be found after examination of oral and documentary evidence in Civil Court. None of the allegations levelled in the complaint would attract the ingredients of various penal provisions referred to in the charge sheet. In order to make up conspiracy there is no material to show there had been meeting of mind between the accused persons. None of the allegations levelled in the complaint would attract the ingredients of various penal provisions referred to in the charge sheet. In order to make up conspiracy there is no material to show there had been meeting of mind between the accused persons. Not even a single witness speaks about the meeting of mind. The so called “entrustment” has not also been established. The prosecution has not established that the petitioner had taken part in preparing the document to get the loan. Further, he is not a party to subsequent transactions. The attempt on the part of the de facto complainant is abuse of process of law. In view of the above, the petitioner may be discharged from the case. 3. The following are the allegations contained in the counter filed by the respondent: The legal principle is, anybody can set the law in motion. One Prabakar Rao, Witness No. 2 has stated about the criminal acts of the accused, so the legal heirs need not be examined. Prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The disputed lands are admittedly in the possession of the petitioner. Hence, the burden of proof shifted to the petitioner. It is not correct to state that the ingredients of various penal provisions have not been attracted. When the complaint allegations are scrutinised in the presence of other materials, it could be seen that all the offences are made out. It is not admitted that the transactions are of civil nature. Even if it is admitted, the criminal liability of the petitioner cannot be thrown away. Valid presumption of probable implication of offender with alleged offence is sufficient to frame charge. There is no misuse of process of law. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 4. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, has dismissed the petition seeking for discharge by observing that the criminal activities alleged against the accused can be proved during the trial alone and the documents filed are sufficient to frame charge against the petitioner. Hence this revision. 5. Point for consideration: Whether the petitioner is entitled for discharge from the case? Point: 6. Hence this revision. 5. Point for consideration: Whether the petitioner is entitled for discharge from the case? Point: 6. The first and foremost aspect to be considered in the matter of discharge is that whether the prosecution has collected sufficient materials so as to make out a prima facie case against the accused for framing the charge and if it is found that no such materials are available then the accused will get the relief of discharge from the case. As far as the facts prevailing in this case are concerned, the de facto complainant has set out certain factors in his complaint. He has admitted that the petitioner was sold 10 cents in S. No. 65 with a right to pathway through T.S. No. 70; 25 cents each was sold to second accused and 6th accused in S. No. 835 and also a sale of 61 cents in T.S.No. 62 to 5th accused. Apart from these conveyances, the de facto complainant is definite in his stand in the complaint that in all other properties, the legal heirs of T.G. Walter have got absolute right and the records brought about with reference to certain properties of the legal heirs of T.G. Walter have been created fraudulently. 7. Other accused who are brothers and sisters of this petitioner have also admitted that they got conveyances from lawful owners. But in their absence no discussion need to be taken. As far as this petitioner is concerned, apart from the sale of 10 cents he lays claim over 2 Acres in S. No. 67. It is his contention that T.G. Walter handed over the land on consideration of Rs. 15,000/- on 5.3.1997 in favour of the petitioner. The document is captioned as ‘Vettukooli Sale Agreement’. It is assailed by the defacto complainant as a fabricated document. It is an unregistered document written on a 2 Rupees stamp paper. The contents of the document go to show that Mr. T.G. Walter had got ‘B’ Memo from the Government and on the basis of the same the petitioner might get patta from the Revenue Department and that she had handed over all the earlier title deeds to the petitioner. 8. The learned senior counsel Mr. The contents of the document go to show that Mr. T.G. Walter had got ‘B’ Memo from the Government and on the basis of the same the petitioner might get patta from the Revenue Department and that she had handed over all the earlier title deeds to the petitioner. 8. The learned senior counsel Mr. B. Kumar appearing for the petitioner would contend that by virtue of the above said ‘Vettukooli Sale Agreement’ the petitioner has become owner of the property and in the final report, absolutely there is no material to indicate the culpability of the petitioner, that it is not known from the charge sheet as to for what reason the criminal conspiracy was hatched, that the defacto complainant is not an aggrieved party and as loan is obtained from co-opearative society, the defacto complainant could not be sufferer, that in view of the pendency of the civil cases the complaint will not stand and that it is abuse of process of law. 9. The learned Government advocate Mr. P. Kandasamy would submit that on the strength of the materials available from the statement of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the Charge Sheet has been lodged and that there is no ground to consider the discharge of the petitioner from the case. 10. Mr. C. Vakeeswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would argue that the signature found in the Vettukooli Sale Agreement does not belong to Ms. T.G. Walter and the record has been fabricated, that if any encumbrance is made, the defacto complainant would get aggrieved and that even though the civil litigations are pending, there is no bar for criminal complaint. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed much reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in support of his contention in Ramesh Dutt and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (2010) 2 SCC (Cr) 649 : (2010) 4 MLJ (Crl) 254. The Honourable Supreme Court has referred the earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 in which legal principles have been formulated in the matter of exercising of powers by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C and it is contended that those principles are applicable to the case of discharge also. The following is the passages relevant: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted ana reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. xxx xxx xxx 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. xxx xxx xxx 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. xxx xxx xxx 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 12. He also cited another decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Chaturvedi and Others v. Shitul H. Chanchani and Another 1987 SCC 2796 wherein Their Lordships have observed that when the complaint is vague containing bald allegations it could not be stated that the offences have been made out. He also cited another decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Chaturvedi and Others v. Shitul H. Chanchani and Another 1987 SCC 2796 wherein Their Lordships have observed that when the complaint is vague containing bald allegations it could not be stated that the offences have been made out. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows: “The petition of complainant is a vague one and excepting the bald allegation that the shares of the complainant have been transferred on the forged signatures, nothing further has been started and there is not an iota of material to indicate how all or any of these appellants are involved in the so-called allegation of forgery. The statement of the complainant on oath as well as his witnesses do not improve the position in any manner, and therefore, in our considered opinion even if the allegations made in the complaint petition and the statement of complaint and his witnesses are taken on their face value, the offence under Sections 406 , 420 , 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made out. This being the position the impugned order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence dated 5.2.1996 so far as it relates the appellants are concerned cannot be sustained and the High Court also committed error in not invoking its power under Section 482 of the Code. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Magistrate dated 5.2.96 taking cognizance of the offence as against the appellants stand “quashed.” 13. He also garnered support from yet another decision of the Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (2009) 3 SCC Crl. 929 : in which the Supreme Court has dealt with the terms of forgery, fraud, cheating etc., and after consideration of the fact and circumstances of the case, it has been concluded that even if the averments in the complaint are assumed to be true, they do not make out any offence under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 of the Code, but may technically show the ingredients of offences of wrongful restraint under Section 341 and causing hurt under Section 323 IPC. 14. 14. Bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that sufficient materials are available in the allegations in the complaint and the statements of witnesses which are prima facie and there is no circumstance made out to discharge the petitioner. 15. Insofar as the contention that when the matter is of civil nature criminal complaint is a bar is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (supra) has observed thus: “8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially 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. (See: G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 ), Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.” 16. In view of the above, even if the dispute appears to be of Civil nature, when it is found that if it contains the ingredients of criminal offences, criminal complaint can be entertained. 17. This Court abstains from rendering any observation or findings with reference to the merits of the case, since it may affect the contention of the parties at the final disposal stage. This Court is of consideced opinion that sufficient materials are available as far as the accused is concerned to frame the charge and hence he is not entitled to get discharge from the case. In such a view of the matter, there is no perversity in the order passed by the Court below which does not warrant interference from this Court and the same is confirmed. 18. In fine the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal in Crl. In such a view of the matter, there is no perversity in the order passed by the Court below which does not warrant interference from this Court and the same is confirmed. 18. In fine the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal in Crl. M.P. No. 5045 of 2008 in C.C. No. 12 of 2008 dated 13.4.2010. Connected M.P. is closed. Revision dismissed.