Judgment 1. The petitioners seek quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.53 of 2008, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram. Such case has been taken cognizance for offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. on the basis of charge sheet pursuant to investigation in case registered in Crime No.34 of 2006 on the file of the first respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the first respondent and learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. It is represented that the first petitioner is no more. The second petitioner is his wife. In gist the prosecution case is of an agreement for sale regarding property having been entered into between the deceased first petitioner and the second respondent, where under advances were paid by the second respondent towards purchase of property belonging to the deceased in the year 1996. Not having repaid the advance sums, the deceased had effected sale of the property to another in the year 1997. Thereafter, he had executed an undertaking to effect payment of advance sum of Rs.60,00,000/- in instalments of Rs.5,00,000/- each. He having failed to do so, the complaint came to be preferred. 4. The complainant has informed of the deceased and his wife/second petitioner jointly making a representation that the property would be sold to the defacto complainant and receiving the advance sums and thereafter their having sold the property to another. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that wife/second petitioner has nothing to do with the transaction. She has neither borrowed nor witnessed the sale agreement or subsequent undertaking executed by the deceased husband in the year 2005. The agreement for sale of the year 1996 contained a forfeiting clause and owing to non-compliance the property came to be sold by the deceased husband in the year 1997. Only as a gesture of goodwill repayment of advance has been undertaken by the first petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the complaint informed the participatory role played by the wife in the transaction and as such she has to prove innocence during the trial. 7. Heard learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) on the above submissions. 8. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C, mutually exclusive offences. We are not concerned with the case of the husband, who is no more. 7. Heard learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) on the above submissions. 8. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C, mutually exclusive offences. We are not concerned with the case of the husband, who is no more. As far as the second petitioner/wife is concerned, she has not been party to any document. The transaction is essentially civil in nature. Being of the view the second petitioner/wife has been falsely roped in, this Court would allow this Criminal Original Petition. 9. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.53 of 2008, pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram shall stand quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed.