Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
R. Balaraman & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another – Respondents
Crl.O.P. No. 10341 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 04-12-2019
For the Petitioner:A. Muthukumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Ravichandran, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side), K.R. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
Allegations of forgery and creation of rights over property constitute a criminal dispute that requires investigation and cannot be quashed at an early stage.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Nature of Dispute - Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC - [Sections 468, 471, 420 IPC] - The court held that the dispute, involving allegations of forgery and creation of rights over property, is of a criminal nature and cannot be quashed at the present stage. The court directed the police to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet within two months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR registered against them for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC, claiming that the dispute was civil in nature and subject to a pending civil suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of forgery and creation of rights over property constituted a criminal dispute, and therefore, the FIR could not be quashed at the present stage. The court directed the police to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet within two months.
Issues: Whether the dispute was civil or criminal in nature, and whether the FIR could be quashed at the present stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the dispute, involving allegations of forgery and creation of rights over property, constituted a criminal matter that required investigation and could not be quashed at the present stage.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the police were directed to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet within two months.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Crl.O.P., filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Crime No.73 of 2012 of the first respondent Police and quash the same.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed praying to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Crime No.73 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent Police and to quash the same.
2. The 1st respondent Police registered a case against the petitioners herein in Crime No.73 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent. During the investigation, the petitioners have filed the present Crl.O.P., seeking to quash the FIR, pending on the file of the 1st respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute is civil in nature and already there is a civil suit pending before the civil court in O.S.No.158 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee. During the pendency of the suit before the civil court, the 2nd respondent has filed the complaint. There was RDO enquiry and the report states that based on the settlement deed, the 3rd petitioner herein obtained patta in his name and the settlement deed is also acted upon. The learned counsel further submits that as to whether the settlement deed is valid or not and whether the vendor of the 1st and 2nd petitioners have title over the property or not, will be decided by the civil court, only after trial in the pending suit. As such, in the issue on hand, there is no criminal offence made out in the FIR and therefore, the same has to be quashed.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he was instructed that 1st and 2nd petitioners died, there is no proof produced before this court and he argued for the 3rd petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that already FIR has been registered, but investigation is at partly completed stage and due to stay granted by this court, while admitting the Criminal Original Petition, they could not proceed further with the investigation and charge sheet not yet filed. The investigation of the case, will only reveal as to whether the document has been forged or not. Hence, it is premature to state that the dispute is civil in nature or criminal in nature, but the same has to be revealed only after the investigation and not at this stage.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the 1st and 2nd petitioners forged the document and executed settlement deed in favour of the 3rd petitioner/son of the 1st and 2nd petitioners and they do not have any title over the property; even their predecessors did not have title for the property even though patta is granted in their favour. But subsequently, the patta has been cancelled. In any event, since the petitioners have forged the document and based on the forged document, they tried to grab the land of the defacto complainant, and in such circumstances, the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also registered the case and only the investigation will reveal whether the petitioners have forged the document against the real owner or not and all the true facts will come to light, only after investigation.
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners before the 1st respondent-Police, the 1st respondent registered the case in Crime No.173 of 2012 against the petitioners and the investigation is pending and the petitioners have filed the present Crl.O.P. This court, while admitting the Crl.O.P., on 23.04.2013, granted stay and due to that, investigation could not be carried out and final report is yet to be filed.
9. A reading of the complaint shows that there is prima facie allegations against
