ORDER : The prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to register a criminal case against the respondents 3 to 5. Incidentally, the third respondent happens to be a Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry. 2. Heard Mr.M.Ramamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 5 respectively and Mr.Thangavel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the first respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the land comprised in Survey Nos.154 & 155/2 situated at Villayanur Village was purchased by them on 17.10.2011. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officials has passed an order of attachment on the said property. It is now the grievance of the petitioners that the fifth respondent had sold the said property to one Mrs.Nawaselvi who, they claim, to be the relative of the third respondent, who is the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fifth respondent had no right to sell the property since his right has extinguished in the year 1944 itself. It is the case of the petitioners that the third respondent had connived with the fourth respondent for the purpose of registering the property to the relative of the third respondent and thereby committed a criminal offence. So submitting, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for registration of a criminal case against the respondents 3 to 5 herein. 4. Mr. R.Krishnamoorrthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the third respondent on the other hand submitted that Mrs. Nawaselvi, who is the sister-in-law happens to have purchased the subject lands for a valid sale consideration out of her self acquired funds and the petitioners who are the rival claimants have unnecessarily dragged his name into the controversy. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the present petition seeking for registration of a criminal complaint is unfounded and made with an ulterior motive. 5. Mr. AR.L.Sunderasan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that the petitioners herein have been making rival claim over the subject property on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the present petition seeking for registration of a criminal complaint is unfounded and made with an ulterior motive. 5. Mr. AR.L.Sunderasan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that the petitioners herein have been making rival claim over the subject property on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Tracking their title of the subject property, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the fifth respondent had a valid title in his favour and had sold the same for a valuable consideration to Mrs. Nawaselvi. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. At the outset, it would be appropriate to point out that the petitioners had arrayed in, the third respondent, who is the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry as a party respondent with vague allegations. There is not a single piece of evidence to substantiate that the third respondent had any role to play in the alleged complaint made by the petitioners. The only allegation made in the affidavit is that the third respondent had influenced the fourth respondent to have the document registered in favour of his sister-in-law. The third respondent who happens to hold a constitutional post cannot be made as a party respondent in the absence of any valid document to substantiate the allegations. 8. It is also seen that the claim made by the petitioners is purely civil in nature and that the petitioners are aggrieved against the purchase of a property by Mrs. Nawaselvi who incidentally happens to be a sister-in-law of the third respondent. From the averments made in the affidavit, it can only be construed that the petitioners are aggrieved against the sale transaction of a property in which they claim rival title. Since the claim is purely civil in nature, the complaint against the third respondent who is neither a party to the sale transaction nor is anyway involved in the said property, cannot be implicated for any criminal offence in connection with the present sale transaction. Insofar as the fourth respondent is concerned, there is absolutely no allegations against him except for a vague statement that the third respondent had connived with the fourth respondent for the purpose of having the subject property registered in favour of Mrs. Nawaselvi. Insofar as the fourth respondent is concerned, there is absolutely no allegations against him except for a vague statement that the third respondent had connived with the fourth respondent for the purpose of having the subject property registered in favour of Mrs. Nawaselvi. The fourth respondent who is the District Registrar, had performed his official duty prescribed under the Registration Act and apart from that he had no role to play in the allegations made by the petitioners. In the absence of any such allegations, it can only be held that the fourth respondent had registered the sale deed in good faith by exercising his official capacity. While that being so, the fourth respondent shall not be liable for any act as alleged by the petitioners in view of Section 86 of the Indian Registration Act. On an overall perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the above criminal petition as well as the documents produced by the petitioners, it can only be seen that the criminal petition is not only misconceived but has been filed with an ulterior motive. The petitioner having chosen to implicate a Constitutional Authority as well as the District Registrar who had performed his duty in his official capacity in a criminal proceedings without any iota of evidence and particularly when the averments in the affidavit clearly discloses that the dispute is one of civil in nature, it is liable to be dismissed and the petitioners are also liable to pay costs, since the Criminal Original Petition would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. In view of my findings that the Criminal Original Petition is vexatious in nature, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.