(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.364 of 2026 dated 30.04.2026 and quash the same in respect of the petitioner alone.)

1. The present petition has been filed by the accused No.1 in Crime No. 364 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police, seeking to quash the First Information Report wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 329(4), 62 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2. A perusal of the F.I.R. discloses that the property in dispute belonged to one Nalla Thambi, who breathed his last on 02.04.2026. The defacto complainant is the widowed daughter-in-law of the said Nalla Thambi. It is alleged that after the demise of Nalla Thambi, the petitioner herein and the other accused trespassed into the property, held out threats to the defacto complainant and took away the bureau locker key from her. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyakulam, on 11.04.2026, whereafter the petitioner and others are said to have threatened her to withdraw the same.

3. According to the defacto complainant, she is the sole legal heir. It is her case that the petitioner and others trespassed into the property, occupied the same and are conspiring to do away with her, and it is in these circumstances that she lodged the complaint for recovery of the bureau locker key, the jewels and the documents kept therein.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the brother's son of the deceased Nalla Thambi, that the deceased executed an unregistered Will on 20.01.2026 and passed away on 02.04.2026. He would further submit that the husband of the defacto complainant died on 09.11.2014 and that for the past twelve years she has been residing at Chennai, being employed in the Human Resources Department of an Information Technology company. Under the Will, the properties are said to have been bequeathed to the brother’s son of the deceased.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the claim of the petitioner and the other accused over the property rests solely upon the Will; that the defacto complainant is permanently residing at Chennai; and that the petitioner and the other accused are taking effective steps to institute a suit for declaration of their rights over the property. That being so, the allegation that they encroached upon the property and took away the locker key, jewels and other documents is unsustainable. He would add that the defacto complainant has given a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute, with a view to coercing the beneficiaries into relinquishing their claim to the properties, and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would occasion grave prejudice to the petitioner and the other accused in setting up the Will in support of their claim.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that her husband, one Selvaprasath, died on 09.11.2014; that she is the sole legal heir of the deceased Nalla Thambi and is consequently entitled to all the jewels and properties; and that the petitioner and others are setting up a false claim founded upon a Will forged by them. He would submit that possession of the properties must accordingly continue to remain with the defacto complainant.

7. It was further submitted on behalf of the defacto complainant that the petitioner and the other accused illegally trespassed into the house property, snatched the locker key and removed the jewels and other documents kept in the locker. It is contended that they must approach the competent Court to have the Will proved, and that only upon succeeding therein can they lay claim to the property; until then, possession cannot be retained by them, and their acts squarely attract the provisions now invoked. He accordingly prayed that the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner and others be sustained.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the F.I.R. came to be registered upon the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant and that the matter is under investigation. He would contend that the rival contentions can be tested only upon completion of the investigation, and accordingly prayed that the investigation be not interdicted at this stage.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

10. As borne out by the F.I.R., the allegation is one of house trespass, snatching of the locker key and removal of the jewels and other documents therefrom. The petitioner and the other accused lay claim to the property on the strength of an unregistered Will said to have been executed by Nalla Thambi on 20.01.2026, while the defacto complainant asserts her claim as the sole legal heir of the deceased. Unless the Will is proved and its genuineness declared by the competent civil Court, the question of title to the disputed property cannot be determined. In such circumstances, the ingredients of house trespass or criminal intimidation cannot be said to be attracted against the petitioner. Even as per the F.I.R., the defacto complainant has all along been residing at Chennai and is employed in the Human Resources Department of an Information Technology company. Should the civil Court ultimately hold the Will to be genuine and valid, the petitioner and the other accused would be put to grave prejudice if they are compelled to face trial.

11. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner and the other accused are not strangers to the family and that their claim rests upon an unregistered Will dated 20.01.2026, and there being a serious dispute touching upon the title to the property, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

(D).Conclusion:

12. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Crime No.364 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police stands quashed insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.