ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.14/2013, on the file of the District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows :- The defacto complainant one Kandasamy had given a complaint stating that the petitioner colluded themselves and created forged documents and sold the property of the defacto complainant, to an extent of 76 Acres 13 cents, to one T.Rajkumar and T.Ramkumar, by Document Nos. 814, 815 and 816 and in the sale deeds, the said Ramachandra Kumar and one Veda @ Vedanayagam were put their signatures, as witnesses and further the said Rajkumar and Ramkumar with the help of one Santheep Anand again sold the same to one Mala, in Document Nos.933/11 and 939/11. On knowing these fact, the defacto complainant had approached the Ramachandra Kumar and Bernat and asked about the same for that they promised to settle the sale consideration of Rs.1,42,18,000/-, but did not settle the amount, as promised. While the defacto complainant approached the petitioners and demanded to settle the above said sale consideration, they threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner herein is engaged in the business of Real Estate under the name and style of 'Amba Farms Pvt. Ltd.' at Thoothukudi and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the brothers of 1st petitioner. The defacto complainant was working as an agent under the 1st petitioner, from March 2002 to November 2010 and purchasing the lands on behalf of the first petitioner Company and on account of his official duties, he was entrusted with huge amounts, for the purpose of purchasing the lands on behalf of the Company. The defacto complainant had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- of the first petitioner Company so that the petitioner had terminated the service of the defacto complainant and directed him to execute the sale deeds in favour of the Petitioner Company in respect of the properties for which he had obtained General Power of Attorney, but the first accused was unable to render proper accounts and unable to execute the sale deeds even though he had received the sale consideration prior to the execution of General Power of Attorney from the real owners. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had sold the properties to the first and second petitioners and the sale deed was executed. In these circumstances, the defacto complainant had given an advertisement in the News Paper, 'Dinamalar' issue, dated 28.07.2011 suppressing the above sale, handing over of the documents and claiming the original General Power of Attorney, stating that the original title deeds were lost and also gave a complaint to the Tahsildar falsely stating that he has not executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3. It is his further contention that the defacto complainant made the complaint before the respondent Police after a period one and half years ie., on 19.03.2013 and it clearly shows the falsity of the defacto complainant. In order to wreck vengeance against the petitioners, the present complaint has been lodged and therefore, he prayed to quash the FIR in Crime No.14/2013, on the file of the District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi. 4. It is his further contention that the defacto complainant on 04.08.2011 had given a declaration deed wherein he had stated about his employment with the first petitioner and had also given a declaration that the sale deed in Doc.Nos.814/2011, 815/2011 and 816/2011 and the power of attorney had been handed over to the first petitioner on 12.04.2011 and paper publication given by the defacto complainant on 28.07.2011 had been taken back. The sale deed executed on 12.04.2001 has been reaffirmed and he would take necessary steps for the revenue records to be changed in the name of subsequent purchasers. Further, a paper publication had been given by the first petitioner on 23.04.2013 about the petitioners being taken into illegal custody by the respondent police and forcibly obtaining the signatures and finger prints. It could be seen that there has been some misappropriation by the defacto complainant and for which, he has been using the documents handed over by the petitioner, which was in his possession to create a false case against the petitioner and to escape from the clutches of law and as a counter-blast, the above complaint was lodged. Since the petitioners gave a public notice and complained against the respondent police, the police though aware that it is a civil case to save themselves from their excess conducted in this case and forced to file a charge sheet. Since the petitioners gave a public notice and complained against the respondent police, the police though aware that it is a civil case to save themselves from their excess conducted in this case and forced to file a charge sheet. He also submits that the defacto complainant admits about the earlier transaction and his grievance is only on the second sale of the property. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that totally there are five accused in this case, A1, A2 and A3 are brothers and A5 is the impersonator and there are five other similar cases of this nature pending against the petitioners. The petitioners are land mafia. Public notice has been given by the defacto complainant and also representation to the Collector and revenue authorities. Though it is projected as though a compromise was arrived at between the defacto complainant and the petitioner, the same had been done under force and duress and the finger print expert had given an opinion, and it proved the forgery committed by the petitioners. 6. The learned Government Advocate (clr.side) appearing for the State would submit that totally there are 8 accused in this case and it is a case of impersonation. A5 executed sale deed in favour of A3, as if the defacto complainant executed. Subsequently, the other co-accused had purchased the same. There are two expert witnesses, who have given reports against the petitioners. Investigation in this case had been completed charge sheet could not be filed due pendency of the case before this Court. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, in this case, investigation has been completed, Expert Opinion had been obtained and though Final report is made ready, charge sheet in this case could not be filed because of the pendency of this above case. There are enough materials to proceed against the petitioners. The points raised by the petitioners are to be decided only during trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief, as prayed for. 9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to decide the matter on its own, without being influenced by the observations and findings of this order.