AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. R. Saravanan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, as well as Mr. K.M.
Vijayakumar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3.
The main grievance of the Petitioners is that, in spite of a civil suit, in O.S. No. 43 of 2009, pending on the file of the Sub Court, Theni, praying
for a decree for declaration, to declare the sale deed, dated 04.04.2008, as void and to grant permanent injunction against the Defendants therein,
the second and the third Respondents had initiated an enquiry against the Petitioners, as well as the sixth Respondent, based on the complaint given
by the fourth Respondent. It has been submitted that no enquiry can be held by the second and the third Respondent, since, the civil suit, in O.S.
No. 43 of 2009, is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Theni. It has also been alleged that the fifth Respondent has lodged a complaint regarding
forgery, only with the malafide intention of harassing the Petitioners and others. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Petitioners have preferred the
present writ petition praying, for a Writ of Prohibition, to prohibit the second and the third Respondents from conducting the enquiry on the basis
of the complaint made by the fourth Respondent and consequently, not to harass the Petitioners and their family members.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ
petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the Petitioners to participate in the enquiry, if any, conducted by the second
and the third Respondents to show that the document in question is not a forged document. No costs.