Crl.R.C.No.1420 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.08.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

Crl.R.C.No.1420 of 2023

V.Ramadoss

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police,

Office of the Superintendent,

Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Anti-Land Grabbing Cell,

Office of the Superintendent,

Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

3.P.Ramesh

… Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal

Procedure Code to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Vridhachalam dated 17.05.2023 in

Cr.M.P.No.2301/2022, and to further direct the 2^nd respondent to register

an FIR.

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1420 of 2023

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj

for Mr.M.Jothi Kumar

For RR1 & 2 : Mr.R.Vinothraja, GA (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Challenging the orders dated 17.05.2023 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vridhachalam in Cr.M.P.No.2301/2022, the

present revision is filed.

2. The revision petitioner filed a private complaint under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vridhachalam

for a direction to the second respondent police to register an FIR on the

complaint given by the revision petitioner and investigate the case under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Vridhachalam, after perusing the complaint and other relevant records,

dismissed the said petition on the ground that the dispute between the

revision petitioner and one Viswanathan (Accused) is purely civil in

nature and therefore, the complaint of the revision petitioner cannot be

Page 2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1420 of 2023

referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. Heard, Mr.C.Iyyaparaj, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Mr.R.Vinothraja, learned Government Advocate (Crl.

Side) for the respondents 1 & 2.

4.Mr.C.Iyyaparaj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

contended that the signature of the father of the revision petitioner was

forged in the sale deed dated 08.07.2016 with the connivance of the Sub-

Registrar Vridhachalam and other officials and that the property which

has been allegedly sold in favour of the accused Viswanathan is a joint

family property consisting of the present revision petitioner, his brother

Velmurugan and his father Viswanathan (since deceased). He drew the

attention of this Court to the last page of the photocopy of the sale deed

in which the date of purchase of stamp paper is indicated as 24.06.2016

whereas in other pages the date of the stamp paper is indicated as

08.07.2016. He also contended that the persons who identified the

vendor and buyer before the Sub Registrar are mentioned as

Page 3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1420 of 2023

Kaliyaperumal and Baalambal, the person who had attested the sale deed

is mentioned as Baalambal and Velmurugan. He therefore contended that

it is a clear case of forging of documents and therefore, the accused

should be summoned by the police and investigate the case.

5. Per contra, Mr.R.Vinothraja, learned Government Advocate

(Crl. Side) for the respondents 1 & 2 contended that based on the

complaint given by the present petitioner challan was issued in Current

Paper No.SPGP/1447/2021 dated 29.06.2021 and after conducting an

enquiry the matter was closed on 16.04.2023 on the ground that the

dispute between the parties is civil in nature.

6. It is alleged that the present petitioner holds 1/3^rd share in the

property of his father (since deceased) and that the purchaser of the suit

property has forged the signature of his father in the sale deed. In the

complaint, the petitioner had stated that on 08.07.2016 his father went to

Sub Registrar office at Vridhachalam after getting signature of hi