12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent Police filed counter and family tree of petitioners and the 2 nd respondent and made his submission that the property in survey Nos.26 & 27 to the extent of 70 cents of housing land and 1.26 cents of agricultural land were equally settled in the year 1953 between the petitioners' group and the 2nd respondent's group. From Balaiah Naidu, the property devolved to his son Lourdu Naidu, who sold the property of 35 cents of housing land vide document No.1124 of 1974 in favour of Sebastian Naidu, son of Abraham Naidu. Hence, the Abraham Naidu group hold the entire 70 cents of housing land situated at Sendamangalam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. Thereafter, the 1 st petitioner as well as her sister Amalorpava Mary, who are the daughters of Lourdu Naidu, vide document No.1901 of 1993, sold 63 cents of agricultural land to one Darvin Joseph. Thereafter, the petitioners' group have no land holding in survey Nos.26 & 27 in Sendamangalam Village. Suppressing the same, the 1 st petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of her husband Emanuvel, vide document No.1125 of 2009, dated 14.09.2009, using the same, the said Emanuvel created bogus sale deed in document No.4000 of 2009 measuring to the extent of 68 cents and sold the same to one Arokiaraj, again, the 1 st petitioner executed gift settlement deed vide document No.124 of 2010, dated 11.01.2010 in favour of her son Anandraj/2 nd petitioner. Initially, the complaint was lodged on 21.07.2014 to the Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Kancheepuram. Finding the dispute is within the family members, the petitioners' and the 2 nd respondent's group were called for enquiry and petitioners' admitted about the creation of documents without any valid right and executed three cancellation deeds in document Nos.3231, 3223 & 3222 of 2014 on 25.07.2014. Hence, quites was given to the dispute between the parties. Not stopping with the same, A1 again created a forged gift deed in document No.3264 of 2014, dated 28.07.2014 to the extent of 78 cents of land in favour of the 2 nd petitioner and later, again created bogus sale agreement in favour of the 3 rd petitioner. After completion of investigation, the 1 st respondent Police filed the charge sheet against the petitioners. Now, the case has been pending for trial in C.C.No.30 of 2018, due to the pendency of the above petition, the trial could not be proceeded. Hence, he prayed for dismissal.
