Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in both the quash petitions are arrayed as A4 and A5 in FIR No. 48/2011 dated 5.12.2011 on the file of the first respondent, District Crime Branch, Anti Grabbing Cell, Thanjavur. 2. Both the petitions are filed to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the ground that the dispute between the defacto complainant and the main accused 1 to 3 was already decided in the patta proceedings and is purely civil in nature and the same is sought to be given criminal colour only to harass the petitioners and amounting to abuse of process of law. The FIR arising out of the complaint, which is sought to be quashed herein, is lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant in respect of the property in question, which was mentioned as 2nd item in the complaint. The complaint proceeds as if the property originally belonged to one M. Samiammal and Subramanian and they sold the property to one V. Pattu Ammal by way of registered sale deed dated 23.6.1970 who inturn sold the same in favour of the defacto complainant under registered sale deed dated 1.2.1985 for valuable sale consideration and the defacto complainant has been since the date of purchase in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property by obtaining mutation in the revenue records and by obtaining patta from the competent authority and A1, who is the vendor of the defacto complainant, along with her sons/A2 and A3 with the assistance of A4 and A5/petitioners herein, conspired among themselves and created fabricated documents dated 11.1.2011 and 24.2.2011 with common intention to grab the properties and cause loss to the defacto complainant and the same amounts to an act of fraud and criminal conspiracy and an act of cheating. The forged documents referred to above in the complaint dated 11.1.2011 and 24.2.2011 are the general power of attorney executed by A1 Pattu, A2 Ilangovan and A3 V. Subramanian in favour of A4 Kaliamurthy and the sale deed executed by A4 Kaliamurthy in favour of A5 Rathinakumar in respect of the property in dispute. 3. The forged documents referred to above in the complaint dated 11.1.2011 and 24.2.2011 are the general power of attorney executed by A1 Pattu, A2 Ilangovan and A3 V. Subramanian in favour of A4 Kaliamurthy and the sale deed executed by A4 Kaliamurthy in favour of A5 Rathinakumar in respect of the property in dispute. 3. According to the petitioners/A4 and A5 herein, A1 to A3 are the legal heirs of the original owner of the property by name Vaithiyalingam since deceased and the document executed by A1 to A3 in favour of A4 is only general power of attorney and the sale deed executed by A4 in favour of A5 is only on the strength of such general power of attorney. It is also their case that the defacto complainant has nothing to do with the property and has come forward with this complaint on the strength of old patta by suppressing the fact that old patta granted in favour of the defacto complainant was already cancelled by the revenue authorities at the instance of A4 power of attorney and the main controversy in issue in the present case is as to who is the actual owner of the property to deal with the same whether Vaithiyalingam or Pattu Ammal and (ii) as to whether the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant allegedly executed by Pattu Ammal conveyed any title to the defacto complainant or not and the same are purely civil in nature to be decided before the appropriate civil forum and are the matters to be decided on appreciation of evidence adduced before the same after full fledged trial. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the first respondent State and the learned counsel on record appearing for the second respondent/complainant would seriously oppose the relief by claiming title to the property on the strength of the so called sale deed executed by Pattu Ammal in favour of the defacto complainant/second respondent. 5. Heard the rival submission made on both sides. 6. The complaint filed by the second respondent, which is registered in FIR No. 48/2011 against the petitioners herein and three others, is admittedly on the basis of the title dispute. 5. Heard the rival submission made on both sides. 6. The complaint filed by the second respondent, which is registered in FIR No. 48/2011 against the petitioners herein and three others, is admittedly on the basis of the title dispute. The basis of the allegations raised against the accused is that the defacto complainant is conveyed title to the property on the basis of the sale deed executed by Pattu Ammal and two sons and the petitioners herein thereafter conspired together to create forged document and grab the land to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant. The complainant has produced the photo copies of the sale deeds including the sale deed dated 1.2.1985 computer patta issued in his name and Encumbrance Certificate and publication in Dina Malar dated 21.3.2011. 7. Whereas, the petitioners herein have enclosed the following documents in the original and additional typed set of papers viz., (i) Encumbrance Certificates in respect of the property for the period between 1.1.1950 and 31.12.1966, 1.1.1967 to 31.12.1986 and 1.1.1987 to 6.1.2011 (ii) Chitta dated 5.1.1989 issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Neelagiri South Thottam, Thanjavur; (iii) patta stands in the name of Vaithiyalingam in S.No.44/10 and (iv) order passed by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur dated 20.6.2011. The reading of the documents referred to above would reveal that S.No.44/10 is covered under patta No. 2082 and the same is for the faslies 1395 stands in the name of Vaithiyalingam and Pattu Ammal, who is the so called vendor of the defacto complainant, is one of the legal heirs of Vaithiyalingam and Vaithiyalingam died in the year 1988 leaving behind his wife, three daughters and two sons and the joint patta obtained by the defacto complainant in his name in respect of the property in question was, by competent authority, cancelled at the instance of the A4 power of attorney holder and the defacto complainant, without questioning correctness of such order by way of further appeal or revision and without approaching the appropriate civil forum to declare his right, in respect of the suit property, has come forward with the present complaint against A1 to A3/legal heirs of the original owner and A4 and A5 power of attorney holder and subsequent purchaser. 8. 8. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the entire dispute revolves around the question of title issue and the appropriate remedy if any to the defacto complainant is by way of civil suit before civil forum. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that (i) when the dispute between parties constitute only civil wrong and not criminal wrong, Courts would not permit a person to be harassed through criminal proceedings; (ii) the criminal prosecution shall not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused and the same amounts to abuse of process of law and (iii) the same, when brought to the notice of the court, are prevented by exercising the inherent power of the High Court, are the general principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 (M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. and others); (ii) (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259 (Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others) and (iii) 2010 (1) MLJ Crl. 1095 (Devendra and others v. State of U.P. and another). The Apex Court as early as in 2006 has observed that a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged. The learned brother judge CTSJ in the judgment reported in 2010 (2) CTC 153 (Moosa Ahmed v. the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team No. IV, Egmore, Chennai-8 and another, applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar 2008 (14) SCC 1 is pleased to quash the complaint on the ground that when the complainant is driven by malafides and matter in issue is purely civil in nature, the complaint is, by exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C., liable to be quashed at the preliminary stage itself. 9. 9. The observations of the Supreme Court and our High Court as referred to above are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein also, the dispute involved is more of civil in nature and the defacto complainant, having suffered an order in respect of the land and property in patta proceedings at the instance of the A4 power of attorney, has thereafter come forward with criminal complaint, obviously with malafide intention and ulterior motive to harass the petitioners herein. This Court, while observing so, does not render any finding in respect of the dispute between the parties and is only inclined to proceed to discuss the documents only for the limited purpose of deciding the relief sought for in this petition and is inclined, on the basis of the available documents, to hold that the criminal proceedings does not lie in the factual situation and the same is liable to be quashed. However, the defacto complainant is at liberty to approach the civil forum for appropriate civil remedy if any. 10. In the result, both the criminal original petitions are allowed and the proceedings in FIR No. 48/2011 pending on the file of the first respondent police stands quashed insofar as the petitioners/A4 and A5 are concerned. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.