ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 forged the document of the defacto complainant and executed sale deed in favour of the third parties. The petitioners arrayed as A2 and A3, who are the witnesses to the execution of the said document. Hence the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in S.No.172/5 measuring 1 acre 59 cents, situated at Pappakudi Village, Sathoor Taluk, Virudhunagar District, was sold by A1 to A4. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the said property is owned by his grandfather namely Muthu Muruga Konar, and hence he informed the same to A1. Immediately A1 cancelled the sale deed executed by him in favour of A4 and subsequently, the defacto complainant was put in possession. The petitioners herein are the witnesses for the execution of the sale deed and also for cancellation of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the name of A1's grandfather and the defacto complainant's grandfather are one and the same and the land owned by A1 is stated to be situated adjacent to the land of the defacto complainant. Therefore a mistake had occurred due to error in mentioning the survey number of the land while execution of the sale deed. After coming to know about the said error, A1 immediately cancelled the sale deed executed by him and set right the mistake. He further submitted that the dispute is between the defacto complainant, and A1, A4 and A5. The petitioners/A2 and A3, being the witnesses of the documents both the execution and cancellation of the sale deed, have no knowledge about the contents of the documents, truth or falsity of the same. More over, once the defect was set right, the right of the defacto complainant is no way prejudiced. Therefore, a criminal complaint is not maintainable and the trial is unwarranted. The conduct of A1 and endeavour taken by him, after knowing the mistake, by cancelling the sale deed, would go to show that A1 is obvious to settle the issue and to put an end to that. Therefore, a criminal complaint is not maintainable and the trial is unwarranted. The conduct of A1 and endeavour taken by him, after knowing the mistake, by cancelling the sale deed, would go to show that A1 is obvious to settle the issue and to put an end to that. Strangely, the defacto complainant with an ulterior motive proceeded to gave a complaint after getting the right of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this Court vide order dated, 02.12.2009, in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10867 of 2009, quashed the proceedings in respect of A4 and A5. If the criminal prosecution is allowed to be proceeded against the petitioner, they would be compelled to undergo the ordeal of trial for no indulgence by them. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing the proceedings against them. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the name of the A1's grandfather and defacto complainant's grandfather is one and the same. A1 forged the document and executed a sale deed in favour of A4. It is the further case of the prosecution, that after filing of civil suit by the defacto complainant, A1 has also cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of A4. The petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3, being the witnesses of the forged document. Therefore, there is a prima facie case made out as against the petitioners and the trial is also commenced. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and also perused the materials available on record. There is no representation on behalf the second respondent. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the entire records, it appears that a case was registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.35 of 2007 on 21.10.2007. The fact remains A1 cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of A4 on 22.08.2007 itself and set right the mistake. Subsequently, the defacto complainant was put in possession. The fact remains A1 cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of A4 on 22.08.2007 itself and set right the mistake. Subsequently, the defacto complainant was put in possession. At the time of registering the case, the mistake was rectified and this would clearly goes to show that there is no mens rea on the part the petitioners, being the witnesses of the documents both execution as well as cancellation of sale deed. It is pertinent to note that the name of the A1's grandfather and the defacto complainant's grandfather are one and the same and the A1 also owned land adjacent to the land in question. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners forged the document of the defacto complainant. More over, this Court vide order dated 02.12.2009, quashed the proceedings against A4 and A5. 7. In view of the above, if the trial is allowed to proceed against the petitioners, it will cause great prejudice to them. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, against the petitioners are quashed. The criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.