Back
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
Suganthi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the conviction Judgment passed by the Learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in Crl.A.No.78 of 2018, dated 23.04.2019 by reversing the Judgment made in C.C.No.78 of 2012, dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai and set the petitioners at liberty.)
A. Brief Facts Leading to the Revision:
1. On 29.10.2010, when P.W.16, was on duty at the District Crime Branch, Cuddalore, P.W.1/Suganthi, appeared before her and lodged a complaint, to the effect that her grand-father/R.B.Govindasamy Naidu, had purchased and registered in her name, the property being 5 Acre and 5 Cents in Alamelumangapuram Village, vide Document No.403 of 1970 and Document No.1345 of 1974. While so, her brother, R.Ramachandran had falsely registered a Power of Attorney as if she gave power to him by forging her signature, as well as the thumb impression and registering the same as Document No.52 of 2003 and have dealt with the same including obtaining of EB connection, etc.
2. On the str
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused can be prosecuted for forgery even if they were not the direct signatories of the false document, as long as they were involved in....
To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that abetment and fraudulent execution of a sale deed constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code, leading to conviction.
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating or criminal liability unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown to exist at the inception of the transaction. Similarly, execution of a....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the essential elements of forgery and cheating, highlighting the necessity of establishing the making of a false document and dishonest inducement.
The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
