IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.02.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL.O.P.NO.25784 OF 2021

A.H.Haji Muhammed

...Petitioner

Versus

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

Inspector of Police,

Anti Land Grabbing Wing,

District Crime Branch,

Nagapattinam District.

2.Mohamed Ali.M

...Respondents

Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section

482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records

and quash the case against the petitioner in C.C.No.619 of 2021

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.K.Ayub Khan

For Respondent-1

:

Mr.E. Raj Thilak

Additional Public Prosecutor

For Respondent-2

:

Mr.M.G.Abdul Mujeeb

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the records in

C.C.No.619 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,

Nagapattinam and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the 2^nd respondent is

that when he was in Malaysia, executed a General Power of

Attorney dated 22.07.2009 in favour of one Nasurullah/A1, as his

Power Agent to mange his properties. After coming to know that

his Power Agent was acting contrary to his Will, he was

constrained to cancel the said General Power of Attorney during

the year 2012. On verification of the documents, he came to

know that A1 to A3 colluded together and created forged

documents, using the same, sold one of his properties to one

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Regina Begum. Subsequently, he came to know that his signature

was forged to execute the Power of Attorney in favour of the

said Nasarullah. Hence, the de-facto complainant filed a

complaint against the petitioner and FIR was registered in Crime

No.01 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent- Police. The

first respondent-Police filed a final report, vide C.C.No.619 of

2021 before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam for the

offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) of

I.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence. The

complaint was lodged only against the person, who created forged

document and not against the innocent power agent of the

purchaser.

4. The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of

time, the petitioner/A3 and the second respondent/de-facto

complainant have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise

the dispute amicably among themselves.

5.

The Affidavit dated 20.01.2022 has been filed by the

2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant before this Court. In the

affidavit, it has been stated as follows:

“2.

I have given complaint against one Mr.

Nasuralla the first accused herein for forging

my signature in a power of attorney document

and by using the forged document my property

was sold to his daughter, Mrs. Regina Begam,

the second accused herein, and to the

petitioner's principle Mr.Muhammed Suhali.

3.

I state that after knowing the

registration of FIR against the petitioner, the

petitioner approached me and had explained the

fact that he is under impression that the A-1

Nasuralla is the power of attorney holder of me

and I have given the authority to exeute the

sale deed on behalf of me. His principal is

the innocent purchaser, himself and this

principal have no knowledge about the forged

power power of attorney. Moreover, they are

asked me to execute the Deed of Ratification to

perfect

their

title

with

very

same

consideration of the sale proceeds.

4.

I state that after fully satisfied

with the representation of the petitioner and

no fault on either the petitioner or his

principal, I have executed the Deed of

Ratification dated 18.11.2021 on consideration

of Rs.4,95,000/- in favour of petitioner's

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

principal Mr.Muhammed Suhail and the same was

registered as Document No.248