SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 1942

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
S.S.Janagarajan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5776 of 2011 and M.P(MD).No.2 of 2011
Decided on : 04-09-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.M.Ravi
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Neelakandan, APP Mr.T.Antony Arulraj

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest intention to establish the offense of cheating under the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

Forgery - Property Dispute - Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of I.P.C - The judgment discusses the allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents, and impersonation in a property dispute. The court analyzes the legal provisions related to forgery, cheating, and conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code and emphasizes the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention to establish the offense of cheating. The court also highlights the elements of forgery and the requirement of making a false document with the intention to deceive.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a property dispute with allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents, and impersonation. The petitioner, arraigned as A15, claims to be a bonafide purchaser and denies any involvement in the alleged fabrication of documents.

Finding of the Court:

The court finds that the petitioner, as a bonafide purchaser, did not commit any forgery or impersonation. The court emphasizes the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention to establish the offense of cheating and concludes that no offense is made out against the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolve around the allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents, and impersonation in a property dispute, and the petitioner's claim of being a bonafide purchaser.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest intention to establish the offense of cheating and highlights the elements of forgery and the need to make a false document with the intention to deceive.

Final Decision: The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.541 of 2010 pending before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli are quashed against the petitioner alone.

ORDER :

1. This quash petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.541 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli.

2. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that he is the absolute owner of the property in S.No.405/1 admeasuring 8 acres and 2 cents and in S.No.404/2 admeasuring 22.30 acres. He claims that he had purchased the same by the sale deed dated 01.07.1994 registered as Document No.909/94 from one Rahim and Pitchaikani, who have purchased the said property from two sale deeds registered as Document No.239/93 dated 31.03.1993 and Document No.425/1993 dated 24.02.1993. Insofar as the property comprised in S.No.402/2 is concerned is made against A1, who has executed the sale deed in Document No.945/1997 on 24.09.1997 in favour of A2, A16 and A17. Those sale deeds are fabricated by committing forgery and impersonation. Further, he alleged that A1 has no right or title over the property to make unlawful gain, he executed sale deed in favour of A2, A16 and A17. Thereafter, A6 posed himself as the son of the defacto complainant and impersonating him, executed a power deed and registered Document No.89/2004 dated 03.05.2004, in respect of the property comprised in S.No.405/1 admeasuring 08.03 acres as his ancestral property in favour of A7 to deal with the property. In turn, A7 executed the sale deed dated 14.05.2004 in favour of A11 and registered the sale deed as Document No.592/2004. A11 is a broker, who used to sale properties to M/s.Sarjan Realities (P) Limited. A6, A7 and A11 have all acted in collusion with a view to get money from M/s.Sarjan Realities (P) Limited. In turn, the said M/s.Sarjan Realities (P) Limited, through their power of attorney viz., Narendra Savalia, who is arraigned as A10 sold out the property comprised in S.No.405/1 admeasuring 2 acres situated at Palabathiraramapuram village, Uthumalai Taluk, Tirunelveli District to the petitioner herein, who is arraigned as A15. Further, he alleged that the said M/s.Sarjan Realities (P) Limited is the sister concern of M/s.Suzlon Energy Limited, which is dealing with supply and erection of Wind Electricity Generators. Thereafter, without any title or rights over the property, the entire property has been sold out with the intention to cheat the complainant and grab the entire land. They also jointly conspired together forged and fabricated various deeds by impersonating the complainant. Hence, the complainant.

3. There are totally 18 accused, in which, the petitioner is arraigned as A15. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered the case in crime No.12 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and the same has been taken cognizance for the offences stated above in C.C.No.541 of 2010. The said proceedings is under challenge in this quash petition by the petitioner/A15.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner claimed that he is only the bonafide purchaser, purchased the land from the vendor for valid and proper consideration and he is no way connected with forgery and fabrication of documents as alleged by the complainant. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he purchased the land admeasuring 2 acres comprised in S.No.405/1 situated at Palabathiraramapuram village, Uthumalai Taluk, Tirunelveli District and the same is registered as Document No.1046/4 on 19.07.2004 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Uthumalai. Hence, he has left with no other efficacious alternative remedy, he is constrained to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings as against him taken cognizance in C.C.No.540 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, on the following grounds:

(i)the
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top