Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 4087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
N. Arun Prakash & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.O.P.Nos.16551 &17143 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2014
Decided On : 29-02-2016
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.468, S.471, S.420
Headnote
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120(B), 468, 471 & 420 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 156(1) , 155(2) and 482 – Criminal Conspiracy – Forgery – Cheating and dishonestly inducing the property - It is case of prosecution that out of total extent of 7.16 acres of land, said and settled 4.00 acres of land in favour of the complainants mother on vide Settlement Deed registered as Doc.No. remaining portion of 3.16 acres of land was retained by said and subsequently, they sold said entire 3.16 acres of land by way of 16 sale deeds between period - Said 4.00 acres of land was only with mother of the complainant - Thus, the accused persons, by forging Will dated as if it was executed by said, and by creating forged sale deeds sold properties belonging 2nd respondent/complainant - Hence, complaint has been lodged by 2nd respondent herein and same was registered in Crime No. - Now, petitioners have come forward with the present petitions seeking to quash FIR – Held, it is evident that law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of second complaint even on same facts provided earlier complaint has been decided on basis of insufficient material or order has been passed without understanding nature of complaint or complete facts could not be placed before court or where complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour - Second complaint is not maintainable only when earlier complaint was disposed on full consideration - In present case, on seeing prima facie case in complaint lodged by 2nd respondent, 1st respondent-police has registered FIR - Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in registering present complaint lodged by 2nd respondent - Therefore, submission made by learned counsel for petitioners in this regard cannot also be accepted - Criminal original petitions fail and the same are dismissed - Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Aravind Subramaniam
For the Respondents: Mr. C. Emalias, APP., Mr. N. Manokaran, Mr. V. Anandhamurthy
1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.39 of 2014 pending on the file of the 1st respondent.
2. Since both the criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to quash the same FIR, they are disposed of by way of this common order.
3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.17143 of 2014 are the accused 1 & 2 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.16551 of 2014 are the accused 3 & 4 respectively, in the said case. The 2nd respondent herein viz., Santharam lodged the complaint with the 1st respondent-Police as against the petitioners herein and two others and the same was registered in Crime No.39 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 & 420 IPC.
4. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of these petitions, are as follows:-
4-1. The land measuring to an extent of 7.16 acres in S.F.No.36 in Krishnarayapuram Village, Coimbatore, originally belonged to one Ramasamy Naidu. The said Ramasamy Naidu had two children; a daughter by name Kamala @ Kamalam and a son Nithyanandam. The said Kamala @ Kamalam has two sons viz. Santharam (2nd respondent herein/complainant) and Yuvaraj. The son of Ramasamy Naidu namely Nithyanandam died on 02.12.1995. The said Ramasamy Naidu died on 01.04.1998. The petitioners 1 & 2 viz., N.Arun Prakash and Jayanirmala are the son and wife of the said Nithyanandam respectively. The petitioners 3 & 4 viz., Gopalakrishnan & Narayanasamy are the attestors to the alleged Will dated 23.03.1997.
4-2. It is the case of the prosecution that out of the total extent of 7.16 acres of the land, the said Ramasmay Naidu and Nithyanandam settled 4.00 acres of land in favour of the complainant's mother Kamala @ Kamalam on 10.05.1974 vide Settlement Deed registered as Doc.No.1766/1974. The remaining portion of 3.16 acres of land was retained by the said Ramasamy Naidu and Nithyanandam and subsequently, they sold the said entire 3.16 acres of land by way of 16 sale deeds between the period from 02.12.1980 to 13.09.1982. The said 4.00 acres of land was only with the mother of the complainant. While so, by forging an unregistered Will dated 23.03.1997 as if it was executed by the said Ramasamy Naidu, and by creating forged sale deeds and Power of Attorney Deeds, the petitioners (A1 & A2) claimed right over 0.94¾ acres in S.F.No.36. Further, in the said Will dated 23.03.1997, the Legal Heirs Certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 27.10.1999 which is of a later date to the date of Will was referred, which shows that the said Will is a forged one. Based on the said forged Will dated 23.03.1997, the 1st accused also executed seven sale deeds during the year 2013. Thus, the accused persons, by forging the Will dated 23.03.1997 as if it was executed by the said Ramasamy Naidu, and by creating forged sale deeds, sold the properties belonging the 2nd respondent/complainant. Hence, the complaint has been lodged by the 2nd respondent herein and the same was registered in Crime No.39 of 2014. Now, the petitioners have come forward with the present petitions seeking to quash the FIR.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that out of the total extent of 7.16 acres of land, the 1st petitioner's grand-father Ramasamy Naidu and father Nityhanandam settled 4.00 acres in favour of Kamala @ Kamalam (mother of the complainant), vide Settlement Deed dated 10.05.1974 registered as Doc.No.1766/1974. Thereafter, the said Ramasamy Naidu and Nithyananam were jointly entitled to ½ share in the remaining extent of 3.16 acres. Subsequently, after retaining an extent of 0.94¾ acres of land in the total extent of 3.16 acres, they sold the other portions of land to various persons under 16 sale deed during the period from 01.12.1980 to 13.09.1982. It is further case of the petitioners 1 & 2 that the said Nithyananam died on 30.11.1995. After the deminse of Nithyananam, his father Ramasamy Naidu executed a Will dated 23.03.1997 in fav
