Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
Mahindra World City Developers Limited - Petitioner
Versus
State Rep by its, The Sub-Inspector of Police, DCB, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.8954 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.6354, 6355 & 7429 of 2026
Decided On : 27-04-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.S.Seshadri
For the Respondent:Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate, Mr.K.Gandhikumar
Quashing non-compoundable forgery proceedings permissible post-family settlement under Section 482 CrPC per Supreme Court guidelines.
Headnote:The petition was filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash proceedings in C.C.No.251 of 2020 for offences under Sections 120B, 465, 468, and 471 IPC involving alleged forged sale documents of inherited property in Survey No.118/4C. The defacto complainant inherited the property via family partition in 1939, which was forged and sold through a chain to the petitioner. The court noted the compromise between petitioner and legal heirs of deceased complainant, settling with alternate land. Issues framed around quashing non-compoundable offences post-settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), the court exercised inherent powers. Proceedings quashed against petitioner and similarly placed accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case of forged chain of title documents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's bona fide purchase and post-death settlement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. prosecution evidence and compromise confirmation. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. verification of voluntary settlement with alternate land. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. quashing proceedings per supreme court guidelines. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
The petitioner/A9 in C.C.No.251 of 2020 facing trial for offence under Sections 120(b), 465, 468 & 471 IPC before the learned learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet (trial Court), filed this Criminal Original Petition.
2.Since the defacto complainant Raji died on 17.09.2019, his legal heirs filed impleading petition in Crl.M.P.No.7429 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.8954 of 2026 to implead themselves as R2 to R8. Accordingly, the same is ordered.
3.Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Raji, S/o.Kanthappa Naicker lodged a complaint on 10.10.2013 and case in Crime No.83 of 2013 registered. The complaint is that the defacto complainant inherited the property situated at Veerapuram, Madura Malaiyampakkam. This property devolved from defacto complainant’s forefathers and divided among defacto complainant’s father and father’s siblings by way of Koorchit on 22.07.1939. Thereafter, the property devolved on defacto complainant and his brother Munusamy and the property in survey No.118/4C of 5 cents in patta No.161 stood in their name and they were in possession and enjoyment. This being so, A1 to A6 viz., Authikesavan, Balakrishnan, Radhakrishnan, Sekar, Maheswari and Sundari, having adjacent land, created forged documents and sold it to Natarajan/A7 vide document No.3409 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998. Natarajan/A7 executed a power of attorney in document No.364 of 1999 dated 28.10.1999 in favour of M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A8 to sell the subject property. Based on the power, A8 sold the subject property to the petitioner/A9 vide document No.540 of 2000 dated 18.02.2000.
4.The defacto complainant lodged complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 05.03.2012 and CSR.No.488 of 2011 assigned by Taluk Police Station, Chengalpet. Since no action taken, the petitioner filed direction petition before this Court, later a case in Crime No.83 of 2013 registered on 10.10.2013. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed on 08.11.2019 and taken on file on 07.09.2020 in C.C.No.251 of 2020 against nine persons listing eight witnesses and documents.
5.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A9 submitted that the petitioner/A9 viz., M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited (formerly known as Mahindra Industrial Park Limited) in partnership with TIDCO, a fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu enterprises was in the process of setting up Industrial Park in Chengalpet and in furtherance to the same, acquired large extent of land. Natarajan/A7 represented that he had clear title to the subject property and willing to sell the same to the petitioner/A9 for valid consideration. The petitioner/A9 proceeded to purchase the subject property by way of document No.540 of 2000 registered in Sub Registrar Office, Chengalpet. Natarajan/A7 through his power agent viz., M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A8 executed sale deed (document No.540 of 2000 dated 18.02.2000) in favour of the petitioner/A9 for valid consideration. The petitioner/A9 took possession of the property and started world class Industrial Park in the area and subject property forms integral part of SEZ titled Mahindra World City.
6.He further submitted that the defacto complainant not made out any case against the petitioner/A9 with respect to forgery or use of forged documents. In the charge sheet, the petitioner/A9 shown as Krishnakumar, representing M/s.Mahindra Industrial Park Limited. M/s.Mahindra Industrial Park never employed any person named Krishnakumar. Further M/s.Mahindra Industrial Park changed its name to M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited. The petitioner/A9
