JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR registered in Crime No.40 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.40 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in the above FIR. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2008, the de-facto complainant Velusamy along with his wife Vijayalakshmi and daughter Saranya purchased a land measuring an extent of 80 cents in S.F. No.352 (part), Ganapathy West Village, Coimbatore. The corresponding S.L.R number for the above property is TSLR No.40. The property was subdivided as TSLR No.40/2 which stands in the name of the de-facto complainant and his family members. The above subdivided property would comprise an extent of 80 cents. The remaining property in S.F No.350/1, is the property under TSLR No.40/1. The whole extent of 2.66 acres in S.F No.350/1 was originally allotted to Duraisamy under the partition deed registered in document No.2912/1978 of Ganapathy Sub Registrar's office and 1 acre out of the above property was sold by the said Duraisamy in favour of his brother Palanisamy. The remaining property was offered as security for a loan availed by one Sridevi Selva (Rithik Agencies) from Central Bank of India, Sidhaudur Branch, Coimbatore. Since the loan account maintained in respect of Rithik Agencies became a Non-performing Asset, the property got attached with the Central Bank of India and the same was brought for sale and the recovery action was taken under SARFAESI Act. On 06.03.2012, an auction notice was published in respect of the property measuring an extent of 1 acre and 66 cents. In the auction notice, the property mentioned is 1 acre 66 cents in Survey No.350/1. The corresponding TSLR number is 40 (part). The auction was conducted only in respect of the above said property and it was closed on 13.03.2014. The successful bidder have purchased the property for a sale price of Rs.1,56,75,000/-. The sale certificate was also issued only in respect of 1 acre and 66 cents in S.F No.350/1 (TSLR No.40 part). The corresponding TSLR number is 40 (part). The auction was conducted only in respect of the above said property and it was closed on 13.03.2014. The successful bidder have purchased the property for a sale price of Rs.1,56,75,000/-. The sale certificate was also issued only in respect of 1 acre and 66 cents in S.F No.350/1 (TSLR No.40 part). But, while registering the sale certificate with the Sub Registrar, in the property particulars, along with Old Survey No.350/1 (TSLR No.40 (part) “ New T.S No.40 Part 1 & 2 Extent 1.66 acres Ward 22, Block 23” has also been included. The auction was not conducted in respect of the Survey No. 40/2. However, the accused have managed to include the Survey Number 40/2 in order to grab the properties belonging to the de-facto complainant also. On the above allegations, FIR has been registered. 4. Even prior to the filing of the criminal case, the de-facto complainant has filed a petition in W.P No.661 of 2017 to quash the sale certificate. However, it was withdrawn later. It has to be noted that the Crl.O.P No.5235 of 2019 filed by the accused No.1 & 2 and Crl.O.P No.6504 of 2019 filed by the accused Nos. 6 & 7 to quash the FIR as against the accused of that case have also been allowed on 02.02.2021. In this connection, a civil suit has also been filed and pending in O.S.No.1646 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd accused, who is the petitioner herein is the Bank Manager who had joined duty as Bank Manager of Central Bank of India, Sidhapudur Branch only on 04.06.2014. The sale certificate has been issued on 11.03.2014 itself. Hence, the petitioner/3rd accused – Bank Manager has got nothing to do with the impugned transaction that was followed by an auction notice dated 18.01.2014. 6. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that eventhough the sale certificate was issued at an earlier date, before the petitioner joined the Central Bank of India, Sidhapudur Branch, at the time of registering the sale certificate before the Sub Registrar, he was the Manager incharge of the said branch. The sale certificate was registered on 04.03.2016 in document No.1493 of 2016 with the Sub Registrar office, Ganapathy. The sale certificate was registered on 04.03.2016 in document No.1493 of 2016 with the Sub Registrar office, Ganapathy. The signature of the 3rd accused would show his overtact in the case registered against him. 7. Admittedly, for the sale which was conducted through SARFAESI proceedings, the sale certificate was issued on 11.03.2014. In the said sale certificate, description of property was mentioned as follows: “All that piece and parcel of land comprised in Old Survey No.350/1 (TSLR No.40 Part) measuring an extent of 1.66 acres in Ganapathy Village, under the jurisdiction of Coimbatore Registration District, Gandhipuram, Ganapathy Sub Registration District, Coimbatore Taluk. Boundaries: North by East West Pallam South by Land belonging to Ramasamy Gounder East by Land belonging to Palanisamy West by Land belonging to Ramasamy Gounder. 8. However, for the reasons best known to the authorities, the sale certificate has been registered only in the year 2016. When the sale certificate was registered with the Sub Registrar, in the description of the property, the following details have been given: “All that piece and parcel of land comprised in Old Survey No.350/1 (TSLR No.40 Part) measuring an extent of 1.66 acres in Ganapathy Village, under the jurisdiction of Coimbatore Registration District, Ganapathy Sub Registration District, Coimbatore Taluk. Boundaries: North by: East West Pallam South by: Land belonging to Ramasamy Gounder East by: Land belonging to Palanisamy West by: Land belonging to Ramasamy Gounder. 9. Infact, while registering the sale certificate, no new particulars can be added than what was actually found in the sale certificate dated 11.03.2014. Infact, the Bank Manager, who is the petitioner herein has affixed his signature below the description of property and the list of documents. But, below the signature of the petitioner, in the sale certificate prepared for registration the following particulars have also been included: New T.S No.40 Part 1 & 2 Extent 1.66 acres Ward 22, Block 23” 10. The grievance of the de-facto complainant is that the sale certificate was issued only to an extent of property i.e 1 acre and 66 cents comprised in T.S No.40/1. The survey No.40/2 have also been included stealthily with the help of the 3rd accused along with the other accused. It is a strange case, wherein certain endorsement has been made below the signature of the executor, who is the petitioner herein. The survey No.40/2 have also been included stealthily with the help of the 3rd accused along with the other accused. It is a strange case, wherein certain endorsement has been made below the signature of the executor, who is the petitioner herein. When the description of the immovable property will get completed with the signature that has been affixed, any other particulars if added purposely, or even inadvertently that will not convey any meaning. The sale certificate registered before the Sub Registrar would show that the 3rd respondent has not affixed his signature under “New T.S No.40 Part 1 & 2 Extent 1.66 acres Ward 22, Block 23”. Under such circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the inclusion of the above particulars are clerical errors or done without any criminal intention. Admittedly, a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.1646 of 2012 before the District Munsif, Coimbatore, in this regard. No particulars of property in Survey No.40/2 is mentioned or the property belonging to the de-facto complainant has not been explicitly included in the sale certificate registered before the Sub Registrar's office. Hence, I do not think that there should be any criminal intention to include the property, over and above of the property which was sold through public auction. The unnecessary endorsement with regard to the survey numbers following the signature of the 3rd accused has caused the whole confusion. 11. In my appreciation, it is a clear case where the issues can very well settled before the civil court before which the suit has already been filed. Since the property mortgaged, the property sold and the sale certificate issued are only for the property measuring an extent of 1 acre and 66 cents in Survey No.350/1, 40 (part), there need not be any confusion with regard to the rest of the properties in Survey No.350/1. The de-facto complainant is at liberty to face the civil court where a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.1646 of 2012 (on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore). Since the materials produced before me does not disclose any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner/3rd accused, for a clerical commission of an unnecessary number in the sale certificate, I feel the criminal action cannot bring any fruitful results. Hence, the FIR as against the petitioner/3rd accused is liable to be quashed. Since the materials produced before me does not disclose any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner/3rd accused, for a clerical commission of an unnecessary number in the sale certificate, I feel the criminal action cannot bring any fruitful results. Hence, the FIR as against the petitioner/3rd accused is liable to be quashed. The remaining accused are also formal parties and there cannot be any specific overtact as against them also. Hence, I feel that the FIR is liable to be quashed in entirety and the benefit is extended to the other accused also. The auction purchaser, who had obtained the sale certificate and the de-facto complainant, are at liberty to make request to the petitioner herein, to execute the rectification deed, in order to settle and clarify the confusion that has arisen due to inclusion of some unnecessary particulars in the impugned sale certificate. 12. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR registered in Crime No.40 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.