The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, and where material on record discloses offence, the accused cannot be discharged.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 13.10.2021 made in CMP No.3059 of 2021 in C.C.No.189 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been directed against the order dated 13.10.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, in Crl.M.P.No.3059 of 2021 in C.C.No.189 of 2009.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in C.C.No.189 of 2009. The said case has been foisted against the petitioner and four others, alleging that they committed offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120 IPC. After taking cognizance, when the said case has been posted for trial, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge him from the charges.

3. Before the trial Court, it is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant’s father had purchased a landed property measuring an extent of 34 cents in Survey No.440/2A1A and 11 cents in Survey No.440/2J, from one Mr.Parthasarathy Pillai by a deed of Sale Document No.2693/1963 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar’s Office, Poonamallee. One Mr.Paulraj and his sister Arockiya Madha along with their 5 henchmen came to the land and picked up a quarrel with the defacto complainant and damaged the fencing and removed the name board erected by the defacto complainant. Later, the defacto complainant came to know that they are the group fabricating forged documents for the lands. In this regard, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint in CCB, Land Grabbing Cell. On receipt of complaint, a case in CCB Cr.No.425/2008 under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) IPC was registered and after completing investigation, the investigation officer has filed a charge sheet against the accused persons and the case is now under trial.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant has attempted to give the colour of criminal offence against the petitioner and that too, the matters of which are essentially and purely in civil nature. All documents relied on by the prosecution are properly registered before the Sub Registrar’s Office, Ambattur and there is no necessity of forging such documents as alleged in the charge sheet.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet is prepared without noticing and taking into consideration of complainant’s parent documents. Parent document of the complainant revealed that, complainant Gopalan’s predecessor did not purchase 0.11 cents by any registered document. The respondent police without verifying the boundary marks of previous documents, believing the document submitted by the complainant registered a case and filed a final report against this petitioner. Even assuming that the documents relied on by the petitioner is a forged one, being the reason that the same was executed by the vendor of the land with the bonafide belief that the land belongs to him, it cannot be said that with an intention to defraud the defacto complainant, the petitioner and others committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.

6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since a Civil Suit in C.S.No.260 of 2008 is pending before the competent forum, it would be necessary to discharge the petitioner from the alleged charges. The trial Court without considering the said aspect dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, which is erroneous in law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgments and prayed to setaside the order impugned herein.

(i) B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee & Another [CDJ 2007 SC 1120].

(ii) Yogesh Alias Schin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashra [(2008) 10 SCC 394].

(iii) Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another [(2009) 8 S