Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1759
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
N.S. Rajagopal – Appellant
Versus
State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur & Another – Respondents
Criminal Original Petition No. 21491 of 2017 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 12637 & 12638 of 2017
Decided On : 12-07-2018
For the Petitioner:N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel for Aruna Elango, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Kritika Kamal, Government Advocate, K.R. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
Prima facie evidence of conspiracy to create forged documents justified the dismissal of the petition and the framing of charges against the accused.
Headnote:
Forgery - Property Dispute - The court found prima facie evidence of conspiracy to create forged documents, including a will and a sale deed, and dismissed the petition to quash the prosecution at the threshold.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the accused was alleged to have fabricated a will and executed a sale deed based on the forged documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient incriminating evidence against the petitioner, including the fabrication of documents, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was prima facie evidence to frame charges against the petitioner for conspiracy to create forged documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presence of incriminating materials against the petitioner justified the framing of charges and dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the accused was required to be present for specific court proceedings with conditions to dispense with his appearance under certain circumstances.
1. This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the final report in C.C.No.146 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur.
2. On the complaint lodged by Vanan, the second respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.7 of 2014 and after completing the investigation, have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.146 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against Meenakshi [A1], Subramanian [A2] and Rajagopal [A3], for quashing which, Rajagopal [A3] is before this Court.
3. Heard Mr.N.R.Elango learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused, Mrs.Kritika Kamal, P., learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the first respondent-State and Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the de facto complainant.
4. It is the case of the de facto complainant that the property in question originally belonged to Abayammal. Abayammal died on 24.07.1983 leaving behind as her heirs, Rajagopal [son/A3], Alavandar [son], Karvannan [son] and Ranganayagi [daughter]. The de facto complainant is the son of Karvannan. The allegations in the final report are that Rajagopal [A3] fabricated a Will dated 15.09.1992 purportedly executed by his mother Abayammal bequeathing the property in question to him absolutely; on the strength of the said Will, Rajagopal [A3] is said to have executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Subramanian [A2]; notwithstanding that, a sale deed (Doc.No.606/2003) was executed in respect of the said property to Meenakshi [A1] on 19.03.2003; in the said sale deed, Rajagopal [A3] has traced his title to the unregistered Will dated 15.09.1982.
5. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel submitted that a suit was filed in O.S.No.64 of 2012 by the de facto complainant before the Sub Court, Thiruvarur, in which, there is a finding to the effect that Rajagopal [A3] has agreed to say no objection in transferring 1/4th share of the properties of Abayammal, Vanan and other plaintiffs.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the said finding cannot have the effect of effacing the criminality in the transaction, inasmuch as Rajagopal [A3] has fabricated a Will of his mother and deriving title through the forged Will, he has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Subramanian [A2] and also a sale deed in respect of Meenakshi [A1], who is none other than the wife of Subramanian [A2].
7. There appears to be sufficient force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side].
8. On a reading of the complaint and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements, it is seen that even the sale deed that was executed on 19.03.2003 [sale deed document no.606/2003] has been presented by Subramanian [A2] and Subramanian [A2] has impersonated as Rajagopal [A3] and has registered the document. The Sub-Registrar has been cited as a witness and a copy of the forged Will forms part of the record.
9. In the light of such incriminating materials against the petitioner, the prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold. Hence, there are prima facie materials to frame charges against the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner had conspired with Meenakshi [A1] and Subramanian [A2] to create forged documents, viz., the Will and the sale deed.
10. In the result, this petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the accused submitted that the appearance of the accused before the trial Court may be dispensed with. Accepting the said submission, the presence of the accused before the trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that he shall be present for receiving the charge sheet, for framing charges, at the time of questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. He shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the Trial Court
