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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
M.P. Ashraf & Others - Appellant
Versus
State by, The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram & Another - Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 11086 of 2015 & 15354 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015
Decided On : 16-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:M. Abdul Razack, C.D. Johnson, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2, C. Emalias, R. Sasi Kumar, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to frame charges based on prima facie evidence, even in cases involving civil disputes and criminal prosecution.

Headnote:

Criminal Original Petition - Quashing of Charge Sheet - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - [Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 120 B IPC] - The court discussed the allegations made against the accused, the property dispute, the execution of various documents, and the legal rights of the parties involved. The court referred to relevant judgments to determine the elements of cheating and forgery. The petitioners claimed to be bonafide purchasers, while the second respondent alleged fraudulent actions by the accused. The court found sufficient grounds to frame charges under the IPC, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a property dispute between the second respondent's grandfather and others, leading to allegations of fraudulent document execution and cheating. The accused petitioned for quashing the charge sheet against them.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 468, 471, 420, 406 r/w 34 IPC, and dismissed the petitions.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the ownership of the disputed property, execution of documents, and allegations of cheating and forgery.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination of prima facie evidence supporting the framing of charges under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petitions were dismissed, and the trial Judge was directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.7 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu and quash the same insofar as these petitioners/Accused 55, 61 & 63 to 65 are concerned.

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District and quash the same.)

Common Order

1. Crl.O.P.No.11086 of 2015 is filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.7 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate – I, Chengalpattu and quash the same in so far as these petitioners/accused 55, 61, 63 to 65 are concerned.

2. Crl.O.P.No.15354 of 2014 is filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.7 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate – II, Chengalpattu and quash the case against the petitioners who are accused Nos.2, 12, 13, 69, 70, 8 and 26 respectively.

3. The gist of the allegations made against accused 1 to 86 in this case is that the properties to an extent of 87.02 acres in Thathankuppam Village, Thondamanallur Panchayat, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District belong to the second respondent's grandfather Sanjeevi Reddiyar son of Narayana Reddiyar. There was a property dispute between Sanjeevi Reddiyar on the one side and Adhiyappa Reddiyar and Narasa Reddiyar and 13 others on the other side. Sanjeevi Reddiyar filed a suit in O.S. No.350 of 1961 to establish his rights in the suit property. The suit was decreed followed by confirmation of his rights in the properties by the District Court and then the High Court. After Sanjeevi Reddiyar, his son Venkata Perumal Reddiyar was enjoying the property. Adhiyappa Aeddiyar and Narasaa reddiyar were permitted to cultivate the lands and they were also paying the share of produce to Venkata Perumal Reddiyar. Defacto complainant is the son of Venkata Perumal Reddiyar. He filed a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2001 against his father, brother and sister seeking partition, before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu. The suit was transferred to Fast Track Court, Chengalpattu and is pending in O.S.No.449 of 2004. Adhiyappa reddiyar and Narasaa reddiyar were impleaded as defendants 4 and 5 in the said suit. Venkata Perumal Reddiyar died on 08.08.2002. When the defacto complainant visited the suit properties to find out the crop cultivated, he found that Adhiyappa reddiyar and Narasaa Reddiyar had executed several documents creating encumbrance and alienations over the property. They have executed settlement deed, exchange deed, mortgage deed and sale deed without any right in the property and against law. They sold the property to several persons as detailed in the complaint. Therefore the complaint.

4. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered in Crime no.8 of 2010, on the file of District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, for the offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC. The respondent police, after investigating the allegations made in the complaint, filed a final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420, 406 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences against the accused and issued summons. Challenging the taking cognizance of the offences against the accused, this petition is filed for quashing.

5. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.11086 of 2015 are the accused 55, 61, 63, 64 and 65. They are purchasers of the property in dispute. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.15354 of 2014 are the accused nos.2, 12, 13, 69, 17, 8 and 26. The first petitioner Narasa Reddiyar @ Venkataperumal Reddiyar is the second accused. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the accused 12 and 13 respectively. They are the daughters of Adhiyappa Reddiyar. Petitioners 3 and 4 and accused 69 and 70. They are the grandsons of Adhiyappa Reddiyar. Sixth petitioner/A8 is the son of Narasa Red

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top