BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 01.02.2024 Pronounced On : 22.02.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15117 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.7251 and 7252 of 2020 Ganapathy ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.

1. Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Special Cell, Pudukottai, (Crime No.34 of 2013) ... Respondent/Complainant

2. Venkata Subramanian ... Respondent/De-facto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2020, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai in respect of this petitioner alone.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Gowthaman, Senior Counsel for Mr.Swarnam.J.Rajagopal For Respondents : Mr. E.Antony Sahaya Prabhagar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 : Mr.P.H.Manoj Pandian, for Mr.S.Elambharathi for R2

ORDER

The petitioner the Accused No.1 in C.C.No.4 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, filed this petition to quash the proceeding against him in C.C.No.4 of 2020.

2.The petitioner and other accused are said to have committed offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC. One Shanmugam and other accused executed a possessory farming right of the property situated at S.Nos.368/3, 368/4, 368/6, 368/7, 368/10, 368/12 and 368/13 measuring an extent of 4 acres and 83 cents, belonging to the defacto complainant's Sangam. In the said document, it is represented that one Shanmugam and other persons are in possession of the said properties and the possession was to the petitioner under the said deed. On the basis of the said deed, the accused/Village Administrative Officer issued the forged possessory certificate in the name of the remaining accused. Therefore, the Sangam preferred a complaint before the respondent Police and the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, the investigating agency completed the investigation and filed a final report before the jurisdictional Court and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 4 of 2022. To quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2020, against the petitioner, he filed the present quash petition.

3.Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made the following submissions;-

3.1.Even accepting the allegation made in the FIR and the final report, the offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC are not made out. He further elaborated his argument on the basis of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2009 (8) SCC 751 (hereinafter, called as Ibrahim case) he has specifically stated that the act of the petitioner entering into the transaction with the Shanmugam and other persons to get the possessory right over the schedule property through the document would not amount to fabrication of the document, i.e., false document. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in order to constitute the offence of creation of false document, it must be established that the accused person had made or executed the document claiming to be someone else or he was authorised by someone else. In this case, no such alienation was made.

As per the Ibrahim case, the aggrieved person is only a purchaser of the property and any complaint made by the third party relating to the fraudulent nature of the document can not be legally entertained. For which, he relied the specific paragraph of the Ibrahim case which reads as follows:

11. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term “forgery” used in these two sections is defined in Section 463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part wit