Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
V.Ranganathan – Appellant
Versus
State rep by The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Unit, Puducherry – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.11622 of 2025 | Crl.M.P.No.7742 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Chandrasekar
For the Respondents: Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
The court upheld that police have jurisdiction to register FIR for document fabrication claims, affirming procedural correctness over previous tribunal rulings.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195 - Jurisdiction of police to register FIR under IPC Sections 172 to 188 - The petitioner contended the registration of FIR was devoid of jurisdiction - Court held that documents fabricated outside court do not engage the bar on cognizance - FIR permissible as allegations involve financial misconduct against state. (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Public Service - Seniority Correction - The correction of date of birth is an ongoing service-related issue involving multiple representations by the petitioner, previously upheld by the High Court, but dismissed by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the FIR for fabrication of documents regarding his date of birth in the education department leading to financial gain. Previous appeals for correction of date were dismissed due to procedural delays.
Findings of Court:
Investigation is ongoing; evidence of document fabrication has been established and loss to state noted.
Issues: The core issue involves jurisdiction under IPC regarding document submission and prior tribunal ruling impact.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the jurisdictional bar under IPC does not apply if documents were not in evidence before the court. Issues of forgery must be substantiated based on document origination.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash fir based on alleged fabrication. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations regarding the alteration in records leading to misconduct. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. respondent asserts jurisdiction and legality of fir related to misconduct. (Para 4) |
| 4. pending investigation into the stated allegations. (Para 5) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 28.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 09.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.11622 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.7742 of 2025 V.Ranganathan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State rep by The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Unit, Puducherry.
(Crime No.1 of 2019) 2.Mr.P.T.Rudragoud Director of School Education, P.K.C. Educational Complex, Anna Nagar, Puducherry – 605 005. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Unit, Puducherry and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Chandrasekar For R1 : Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
ORDER This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Unit, Puducherry and quash the same.
2.The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner joined service in the Education Department on 05.08.1988 as Post Graduate Teacher in the Department of School Education in Puducherry. At the time of his appointment, his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service register as 17.08.1958 instead of 18.09.1959. The petitioner gave a representation on 21.08.1989 requesting that his date of birth erroneously entered in service register may be altered corrected as 18.09.1959 instead of 17.08.1958 followed with another representation on 11.04.1991. Thereafter no action taken, but to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, his peers, namely, V.Vetrivel and K.Alexander who were appointed along with the petitioners were fixed seniority in Nos.227 and 233 respectively and the petitioner was fixed Seniority No.251 and for others appointed on the same day, seniority was fixed above the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner sent another representation on 11.05.1995. Again on 11.10.2017, the petitioner sent a detailed representation setting forth the earlier representations given by him and correction of his date of birth not done. Since no action taken, petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.255 of 2018 which was dismissed on 02.08.2018 for the reason that the petitioner's request for change of date of birth is at the fag end of his service, when he is scheduled to get superannuated on 31.08.2018, aggrieved against the same, petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.21325 of 2018. The First Bench of this Court by order dated 24.08.2018 considering the petitioner's request, the petitioner had given his representation as early as on 21.08.1989 which is within the five years period as contemplated by Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed the Directorate of School Education to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service register from 17.08.1958 to 18.09.1959 and permitted the petitioner to continue in service till 30.09.2019, aggrieved against this order. The Directorate of School Education filed Civil Appeal No.9246 of 2019 in SLP No.12908 of 2019. The Apex Court by judgment dated 06.12.2019 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the High Court on the ground that only in the year 2017 i.e., at the fag end of his service, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3.Now the contention of the petitioner is primarily on the ground that the respondent police has no jurisdiction to register FIR for the o
