and A2. Similarly, A2 forged documents and availed loan by pledging the property in Urapakkam Village. As far as the property in Thiruvalangadu is concerned, A2 appears to have forged the signature of the defacto complainant and executed power of attorney in favour of A1 and A1 in turn executed a sale deed in favour of A3, who is his wife. These materials, though clearly indicate that charges under section 406, 465, 568, 471 will not be attracted as against A3, since the materials collected by the prosecution indicate that A1 and A2 actively participated in the creation and falsification of documents. At the same time, since A3 is also a party to the sale deed executed by A1, in her favour, whether her action would fall under section 34 of IPC has to be seen by the trial Court. The trial Court has to decide whether A3 had shared a common intention or not with the other accused wile preparing the forged documents and the trial Court has to proceed in that line. Hence, the question of quashing the final report against the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage. The trial court shall decide the case on its own merits without having influenced by the above observations.
