ORDER : This petition has been filed to call for the records in Cr.No.41 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-XVIII, Vepery, Chennai and quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. On the complaint lodged by Manikandan, the second respondent herein, the first respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.41 of 2018 on 30.01.2018 under Sections 420 IPC, 82(a) of the Registration Act and Section 120-B IPC against Saroja and six others, challenging which, Mohanakrishnan [A2] has filed this quash application. 3. Heard Mr. Ashok Menon, learned counsel for the accused, Mr. C. Raghavan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State and Mr. M. Kamalakannan, learned counsel for Shanmuga Priya/the intervenor, who is the daughter of Dasarathan. 4. The allegations in the FIR are that: the land measuring 3,780 sq.ft. in T.S.No.41, Block No.14, originally belonged to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board; on 27.01.1977, Saroja [A1] had purchased the land from one Dasarathan; Saroja [A1] entered into sale agreements dated 23.03.1970 and 11.10.1970 with the said Dasarathan; on 27.01.1977, a sale deed was executed in her favour by Dasarathan; she had put up a building measuring 3,347 sq.ft. and had left 594 sq.ft. as common passage; Saroja [A1] settled a portion of the property in favour of her minor children, viz., Lakshmanan [A4], Prabhu [A5], Madhu [A6] and Karthik [A7] on 17.03.1997 by making false averments in the settlement deed; another portion of the property was sold by Saroja [A1] to Mohanakrishnan [A2], vide document nos.461/2001, 462/2001, 463/2001 and 464/2001; the balance portion of the property was sold by Lakshmanan [A4], Prabhu [A5], Madhu [A6] and Karthik [A7] to one Sushela [A3], vide document nos.459/2001, 460/2001, 465/2001 and 466/2001 and hence, the FIR. 5. The parameters for quashing an FIR have been set out clearly by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. The allegation in the present FIR is that, in the settlement deed dated 17.03.1997 executed by Saroja [A1] in favour of her children contained wrong averments. On a perusal of the documents submitted by both sides, it is seen that the plot in question measuring 3,600 sq.ft. originally belonged to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Dasarathan was an old Congress man and was an M.L.A. twice. On a perusal of the documents submitted by both sides, it is seen that the plot in question measuring 3,600 sq.ft. originally belonged to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Dasarathan was an old Congress man and was an M.L.A. twice. Therefore, the Government allotted him the said plot vide allotment letter dated 29.09.1965. Those were the times when land was not a gold mine and area in and around Indira Nagar was uninhabited. Dasarathan was holding the plot for 5 years and on 23.03.1970, he entered into a sale agreement with Saroja [A1], who was aged about 30 years then, agreeing to sell the property for Rs.14,125/-. He also received an advance of Rs.6,125/-. Since Dasarathan was not given a pucca sale deed by the Housing Board, he was not able to execute the sale deed in favour of Saroja [A1] in respect of the property. However, Saroja [A1] took possession of the property and made application to the municipal authorities for construction of a building. In the building applications which were submitted to the municipal authorities, Dasarathan has signed. Obviously, Dasarathan knew that he had sold the property to Saroja [A1] and has received the sale consideration and therefore, he readily co-operated with Saroja [A1] in signing the planning permission applications, etc. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board executed a sale deed dated 30.05.1977 in favour of Dasarathan. However, the Executive Engineer did not come to the Registrar Office for registering the document. Therefore, the sale deed dated 30.05.1977 could not be registered. Unfortunately, on 26.06.1977, Dasarathan died. From 1977 to 1997, Saroja [A1] was enjoying the property. On 17.03.1997, Saroja [A1] executed a settlement deed in favour of her children, viz., Lakshmanan [A4], Prabhu [A5], Madhu [A6] and Karthik [A7]. Therefore, the sale deed dated 30.05.1977 could not be registered. Unfortunately, on 26.06.1977, Dasarathan died. From 1977 to 1997, Saroja [A1] was enjoying the property. On 17.03.1997, Saroja [A1] executed a settlement deed in favour of her children, viz., Lakshmanan [A4], Prabhu [A5], Madhu [A6] and Karthik [A7]. In the recitals in the sale deed, she has clearly stated as follows: "WHEREAS, the "SETTLOR" is the sole and absolute owner of the Plot No.340(W), situated at Indira Nagar, T.S.No.41, Block No.14, Kalikundram Village, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Madras and now bearing Door No.10, Indira Nagar, IInd Cross Street, Adyar, Chennai 600 020, (Division No.100) measuring a land extent of 3780 square feet and building area of 3347.24 Square feet and which is morefully described in the Schedule "A" hereunder, the same having been purchased/constructed by from the self acquired money of her husband from one Shri. D. Dasarathan, son of Shri. Dhanapaul, under Sale Agreement dated 23.3.1970/11.10.1970 and Sale Deed dated 27.1.1977, executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. AND WHEREAS the "SETTLOR" is now in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule "A" mentioned property which is more particularly marked "RED" in the plan annexed, as the absolute owner without any interruption." 6. The original sale deed executed by the Housing Board clearly bears the signature of the officials of the Housing Board and Dasarathan. But, unfortunately, it was not presented for registration by Dasarathan and he died on 26.06.1977. The original document is in the custody of Saroja [A1]. Dasarathan left behind his widow Loganayaki and daughter Shanmugapriya. The legal representatives of Dasarathan knew that the Housing Board had not registered the sale deed in favour of Dasarathan. They also knew that Dasarathan had not executed any sale deed in favour of Saroja [A1]. Therefore, they moved the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and after more than 20 years, they obtained a sale deed on 23.01.2014 from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in favour of Loganayaki, in respect of the land that is in the possession of Saroja [A1]. In the mean time, Saroja [A1] and her children, viz., Lakshmanan [A4], Prabhu [A5], Madhu [A6] and Karthik [A7] sold the entire property to Mohanakrishnan [A2] and Sushela [A3] in the year 2001. In the mean time, Saroja [A1] and her children, viz., Lakshmanan [A4], Prabhu [A5], Madhu [A6] and Karthik [A7] sold the entire property to Mohanakrishnan [A2] and Sushela [A3] in the year 2001. On the strength of the sale deed obtained by Loganayaki, her daughter Shanmugapriya has lodged a complaint with the Sub Registrar, alleging that the settlement deed that was executed by Saroja [A1] on 17.03.1997 in favour of her children is a false document. 7. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the averments in the FIR do disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and therefore, the same cannot be quashed. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) supported the contention of the intervenor. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had obtained the property from Saroja [A1] in the year 2001 and it cannot be stated that he had connived with her in usurping the property. In Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another [ (2009) 8 SCC 751 ], the Supreme Court has clearly stated that a false averment in a sale deed cannot amount to an offence under Sections 420, 467, 464 or 471 IPC. It is not the case of the de facto complainant that there was impersonation by anybody. 10. To recapitulate, overwhelming materials show that Dasarathan, an ex-Congress M.L.A. had obtained money from Saroja [A1] and had put her in possession of the property after entering into a sale agreement with her. Though the allotment by the Housing Board was in the year 1965, he entered into an agreement with Saroja [A1] in the year 1970. The Housing Board had executed a sale deed in his favour on 30.05.1977 and he should have executed a sale deed in favour of Saroja [A1] immediately thereafter. Unfortunately, the document dated 30.05.1977 was not registered, because the Engineers of the Housing Board did not come to the Registrar's Office and within 26 days, Dasarathan died. Saroja [A1] was enjoying the property under the very nose of Loganayaki. She settled the property in favour of her children only on 17.03.1997, which is 20 years later. Even in the settlement deed, she has not made any false averment. May be no legal title had passed on to Saroja [A1] in the absence of a registered document in her favour. She settled the property in favour of her children only on 17.03.1997, which is 20 years later. Even in the settlement deed, she has not made any false averment. May be no legal title had passed on to Saroja [A1] in the absence of a registered document in her favour. But, can it be said that she had cheated Loganayaki or her daughter? 11. Learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that Sushela had signed as a witness in the settlement deed dated 17.03.1997 and that the same Sushela had purchased the property in the year 2001 and therefore, there is criminality. On the other hand, Sushela having been a witness to the document, must have known the true facts and therefore, she has come forward to purchase the property in the year 2001, which cannot lead to an inference that she had a guilty mind. This Court is of the view that the FIR in this case is an abuse of process of law and accordingly, this petition is allowed and the case in Cr.No.41 of 2018 on the file of Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-XVIII, Vepery, Chennai, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.