IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.02.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.5 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2025 Mohammed Kasim ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, D-4, Zam Bazzar Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.

Crime No.21 of 2024

2. M.S.Govindarajan ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records of the impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.21 of 2024 dated 01.03.2024, on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Parthiban For M/s.A.Ilayaperumal For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.T.Thiyagarajan

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.21 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464 & 465 of IPC, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and his wife owned property situated at Door No.255/98, Bharati Road, Royapettai, Chennai. The said premises comprises of some shops in the ground floor and other two floors are used for residential purposes. Prior to their purchase, their vendor had let out one of the shops on monthly rent to one Shanthi Mohan and she was running a medical shop in the name of Shanthi Medicals. The petitioner was employed in the said medical shop on a monthly salary. After the defacto complainant's acquisition, the said Shanthi Mohan was paying monthly rent to the defacto complainant regularly. During 2005, the husband of the said Shanthi Mohan died and she was not in a position to take care of the business and she has agreed to transfer her rights in the business along with available stock in favour of the defacto complainant's wife, on condition that a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- has to be paid to her. Accordingly, the aforesaid sum was paid by the defacto complainant to Shanthi Mohan. Later the business and shop was rented out to one Basker and he became tenant under the defacto complainant. The said Basker has been running the medical shop and the petitioner continued to be employed as a salesman under Basker also. The said Basker trusted and believed the petitioner and taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner has fabricated and created a bogus rental agreement as if the defacto complainant and his wife have executed the same by forging and impersonating his signature and his wife signature. Based on the forged and fabricated rental agreement, the petitioner has also obtained drug license, GST and other documents in his name by fraudulent means with the government authorities. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a sole accused and he is a tenant under the second respondent, as per the rental agreement dated 02.08.2019. But all of a sudden, the second respondent demanded exorbitant amount as monthly rent, which the petitioner refused to pay. In fact, for non payment of arrears of rent, the second respondent sealed the premises, which was let out in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged complaint and the second respondent was directed to appear for enquiry. The second respondent did not even whisper about that the renal agreement is fabricated one by forging the signature of the second respondent and his wife. He also stated that the rent amount was not paid by the petitioner. Subsequently, the lock and seal was removed and the petitioner is running the medical shop. In fact, the license was issued in the name of the petitioner and with valid license he is running the medical shop. Therefore, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.3587 of 2022 before the XIX City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction as against the second respondent, without due process of law, the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner can