(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.35 of 2026 dated 25.07.2026 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner alone.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.14 and 17 in Crime No.35 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police, seeking to quash the First Information Report registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2. The case of the prosecution, as could be gathered from the First Information Report, is that the property bearing Door No.74, Azhagarkovil Road, Madurai, was the subject matter of a trust deed dated 06.11.1930, under which an endowment came to be created by the Pudukottai Prince. Under the said trust, created by way of a Will, the Executors appointed thereunder were obligated to perform several religious and educational charities.

3. It is the further case set out in the FIR that the building and the bungalow could only be let out on lease and were not capable of being mortgaged or alienated. Contrary thereto, the Tahsildhar, Madurai North, by proceedings dated 24.06.2016, transferred the patta in favour of one Ramayee and 9 others. The temple assailed the said order before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, who allowed the appeal and directed the patta to be changed in the name of the temple. The said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was in turn challenged before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, who, by an order dated 10.03.2017, remitted the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, for fresh consideration.

4. The FIR further proceeds to state that the Tahsildhar, once again, by an order dated 13.08.2018, transferred the patta in favour of the private parties, which came to be challenged before this Court in WP(MD).No.6330 of 2021, wherein an order of interim stay was granted on 22.03.2021. It is also stated that as early as 16.08.2016, the temple had addressed a communication to the District Registrar requesting that no document touching upon the said property be registered. Notwithstanding the same, and by suppressing the order of interim stay dated 22.03.2021 passed in WP(MD).No.6330 of 2021, A1 to A10 executed a general power of attorney in favour of A13 and A14 on 16.04.2021 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Murappanadu, Tuticorin District, vide Document No.1715/2021. On the strength of the said power of attorney, A13 and A14 executed a mortgage deed on 19.07.2021 in favour of A16, A17 and A18 vide Document No.3444/2021. According to the FIR, the registration of these documents is in violation of Section 22-A of the Registration Act and of the order of interim stay passed in WP(MD).No.6330 of 2021, and is also opposed to Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

5. The Executive Officer of the temple has stated in the FIR that all the accused, acting in concert, have conspired together and created the said documents before the Sub-Registrar Offices at Murappanadu and Vadamadurai, and has, therefore, sought for initiation of criminal action against them.

(B).Submissions made on either side:

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Mrs.Durairani had executed a second Will, which came to be probated after her demise on 25.08.1968, and consequently, the first accused became legally entitled to the property in dispute. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the first Will dated 06.11.1930 stood superseded by the second Will dated 25.06.1968, and hence, no criminal complaint could be lodged on the basis of the first Will.

7. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the Will dated 06.11.1930 does not create either an endowment within the meaning of the HR & CE Act or a trust. It is also his submission that a petition in O.P.No.22 of 1956 was filed before the District Civil Court, Pudukkottai, to establish his status as the legal heir of late Durairani, and that he was recognised as such legal heir. It is, therefore, contended that the property never belonged to the temple at any point of time.

8. Placing reliance upon the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, dated 27.01.2025, the learned Senior Counsel would point out that the said authority has categorically held that the property does not belong to the complainant temple. He would further contend that even assuming that the property had been dedicated, it would at best amount only to a charge over the property for reimbursing the trustee the expenses incurred or likely to be incurred in causing the charities or services to be performed, and would not constitute a complete dedication in favour of the temple.

9. The learned Senior Counsel, placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 355, would contend that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

10. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would submit that A14 and A17 are son and father, and are the beneficiaries under the general power of attorney dated 16.04.2021. On the strength of the said power of attorney, A14 has executed a mortgage deed in favour of his own father, A17, which, according to the learned State Public Prosecutor, is nothing but a collusive document. He would further contend that the property is a specific endowment in favour of the second respondent temple, and the creation of any document in respect thereof would be in clear violation of Section 34 of the HR & CE Act.

11. The learned State Public Prosecutor would further submit that the very fact that the documents have been registered in two different districts, one at Tuticorin and the other at Pudukkottai, neither of which has any nexus whatsoever with the location of the property at Madurai, would clearly reveal the criminal intention on the part of the accused to create an encumbrance over the endowed property. It is his further submission that further investigation is necessary to ascertain the involvement of the other accused, and when a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, this Court may not interdict the investigation.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, relying upon the typed set of papers, would submit that the 'A' Register and the Town Survey Register clearly show that the property stands in the name of the temple. Taking this Court through the Will dated 06.11.1930, the learned counsel would point out that the alienation of the property or the creation of any encumbrance thereon is expressly prohibited. It is his further submission that, after a lapse of several years, it was only in the year 2016 that the Tahsildhar, Madurai North, for the first time, transferred the patta from the name of the temple to that of certain private parties, without issuing any notice to the temple, and that the temple immediately lodged its objection before the District Collector, Madurai, on 16.08.2016.

13. The learned counsel would further point out that on 23.08.2016, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, passed an order restoring the patta in favour of the temple, which was reversed by the District Revenue Officer on 10.03.2017, and the matter was remitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 20.04.2023, transferred the patta in the name of the Pudukkottai Prince. The temple challenged the said order before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, who, by an order dated 27.01.2025, held that the property does not belong to the Meenakshi Amman Temple and confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer restoring the patta in the name of the Pudukkottai Prince. The said order dated 27.01.2025 has been challenged by the second respondent temple before this Court in WP(MD).No.21906 of 2026, wherein an order of interim stay was granted on 03.08.2026, and the writ petition is pending.

14. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent that both the documents, namely, the power of attorney dated 16.04.2021 and the mortgage deed dated 19.07.2021, have been cancelled by the District Registrar, Palayamkottai, by an order dated 21.11.2022, which has attained finality. By the said order, the Sub-Registrar was also directed to initiate criminal proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act. In such circumstances, the learned counsel would contend that the investigation ought not to be interdicted and must be permitted to proceed to its logical conclusion.

15. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

(C).Discussion:

16. The petitioners herein, who are father and son, have been arrayed as accused Nos.14 and 17. A reading of Clause-VIII of the Will dated 06.11.1930 makes it clear that the property bearing Door No.74, Azhagarkovil Road, Madurai, has been specifically endowed for the performance of certain religious services to the temple. It was only after a lapse of 86 years, on 24.06.2016, that the patta standing in the name of the temple came to be transferred in the name of private parties, and that too, without any notice to the temple.

17. On the strength of the said patta, accused Nos.1 to 10 executed a general power of attorney in favour of A13 and A14 on 16.04.2021. Pursuant thereto, A13 and A14 executed a mortgage deed in favour of A16, A17 and A18 on 19.07.2021. Thus, it is evident that A14, the son, has executed a mortgage deed in favour of his own father. Admittedly, the property is situated at Azhagarkovil Road, Madurai. However, the general power of attorney has been registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Murappanadu, Tuticorin District, and the mortgage deed at the Sub-Registrar Office, Vadamadurai. Neither of these Sub- Registrar Offices had any jurisdiction to entertain the said documents for registration. This circumstance, by itself, casts a serious cloud of suspicion over the creation of these two documents.

18. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that on 17.03.2026, yet another general power of attorney has been executed by A1 to A10 in favour of A13 in respect of the very same property. These circumstances would clearly indicate that certain private parties are attempting to deal with the property belonging to the temple on the strength of orders passed by the Revenue Officials, which orders have been stayed by this Court.

19. In the considered opinion of this Court, a thorough investigation is warranted to unearth the involvement of the various persons, including the Government Officials, in dealing with the property. The power of attorney dated 16.04.2021 stands in favour of the son, and the son, along with A13, has executed a mortgage on 19.07.2021 in favour of his father and others. Hence, a prima facie case is clearly made out against the petitioners herein. That apart, the FIR came to be registered only on 25.07.2026, and the investigation is at its nascent stage. This Court is, therefore, of the view that it would not be appropriate to interdict the investigation at this stage.

(D).Conclusion:

20. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.