Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
S. Ravindran & Others – Appellant
Versus
The State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch EDF Team I, Chennai & Another – Respondent
Crl.OP Nos. 10129 & 11206 of 2018 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 5146, 5147 & 5787 of 2018
Decided On : 28-10-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:S. Prabakaran, Sr Advocate, A. Thiagarajan, S. Subramaniyan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:T. Shanmugarajeswaran, Government Advocate (Crl.side), R2, A.R.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel, AL. Ganthimathi, Advocate.

The court emphasized the principle that innocence of the accused at the time of the transaction should be considered, and the investigation should determine whether they were aware of the fraudulent transactions.

Headnote:
Forgery - Property Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sec. 482 - IPC 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B - Sec. 482
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a property dispute where the accused were alleged to have engaged in fraudulent transactions and impersonation. The accused filed petitions to quash the FIR against them.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the accused, who were innocent purchasers of the property, should not be named as accused persons in the FIR. The court directed the police to complete the investigation and file a Final Report within four months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were aware of the fraudulent transactions at the time of selling the property to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it cannot give any finding regarding the role played by the accused and that the issue should be left open for investigation to find out the truth.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions, directing the police to complete the investigation and file a Final Report within four months.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in Crl.OP.No.10129/2018: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the case in Crime No.89 of 2018, pending on the file of 1st respondent Police.

Crl.OP.No.11206/2018: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the FIR and all or any further proceedings issued pursuant to the same in Crime No.89/2018, pending on the file of the respondent and quash the same.)

1. The issue involved in both the Criminal Original Petitions are common and therefore they are taken up together and this common order is passed. The matter was posted today as a specially ordered case on the concurrence given by either side to be heard through video conferencing and after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon-ble Chief Justice.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the subject property situated at Plot No.43, Seashore Town, Survey No.12/1, Sholinganallur Village, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 5 grounds originally belonged to one Saradha Menon, who is said to have purchased the said property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 02.03.1967.

3. The further case of the prosecution is that one Radha Menon claiming herself to be the daughter of the above said Saradha Menon represented as if her mother had expired and she has become the owner of the subject property and pursuant to the same, she executed a General Power of Attorney Deed dt. 25.04.2012, in favour of one Selvamuthukumaran (A-1) to deal with the property. Thereafter, A-1 in his capacity as a Power Agent executed a Sale Deed dt.19.12.2013, in favour of Ravindran (A-2) and his wife Lavanya (A-3). A portion of the property was sold in their favour, measuring an extent of two grounds through a Sale Deed dt. 19.12.2013. Similarly, A-1 by virtue of the same Power of Attorney document sold the balance portion of the property, through a Sale Deed dt. 30-11-2013 ( measuring an extent of 3 grounds) in favour of P. Manohari (A-4, wife of A-7), Sudhir (A-5, son of A-7) and Pria (A-6, daughter of A-7).

4. The further case of the prosecution is that A-2 to A-6 executed a Sale Deed in favour of the de facto complainant on 11.09.2014. The de facto compliant later came to know that the Power of Attorney Deed dt. 25.04.2012, itself is a fake document that was fabricated through impersonation and the earlier transaction in favour of A-2 to A-6 is a fraudulent transaction and knowing fully about the same, the property was sold in the favour of the de facto complainant and thereby A-1 to A-7 have cheated the de facto complainant by entering into a criminal conspiracy and by fabricating documents. A compliant was lodged by the de facto complainant and an FIR (First Information Report) came to be registered by the respondent Police in Crime No. 89 of 2018. The above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by A-2 to A-7, to quash the FIR insofar as they are concerned.

5. Mr.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11206 of 2018 (A-4 to A-7) made the following submissions:

* Neither the allegations made in the FIR nor the materials relied upon by the prosecution makes out any offence against the petitioners.

* The petitioners have been arrayed as an accused only with the intention to extort money from them and therefore, the FIR itself is an abuse of process of law, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

* The petitioners themselves are victims in this case and they have been cheated by A1 and a complaint was also given in this regard on 19.3.2018 and no FIR has been registered till date in the said compliant.

* The entire transaction has taken place through Cheques and Demand Drafts and Capital Gains Tax was also paid and there was absolutely no intention to cheat the de facto complainant.

* The petitioners cannot be added as accused persons in the FIR on mere presumptions and it invol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document