SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MRS S.SRIMATHY, J
N. RATHNAVEL – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi District. – Respondent
CRL OP(MD) NO. 21767 of 2022|CRL MP(MD) NO. 15332 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for M/s.Sharada Vivek
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1, Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar for M/s.Isaac Chambers for R2

Alterations to trust documents do not constitute criminal offences under IPC; primarily civil matters must be addressed through civil courts.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 415, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 and 471 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners accused of fraudulently altering Trust Deeds - Court found that changes did not constitute criminal wrongdoing, as the issues were civil in nature - No criminal offence established under cited sections. (Paras 1 to 18)

(B) Trust Law - Inclusion of female family members as trustees debated - Not sufficient to establish a criminal offense - Changes made to Trust Deed deemed not maliciously fraudulent. (Paras 6 to 13)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Court affirmed that civil matters do not inherently become criminal - Petitioners acted within legal procedures. (Paras 16 to 18)

Facts of the case:
The FIR was filed by the defacto complainant against the petitioners for alleged fraudulent changes to the K.S.P.Natarajan Trust which included claiming benefits without following proper procedures.

Findings of Court:
Merely failing to follow procedural conventions in trustee removal constitutes a civil right violation, not criminal.

Issues: The court addressed whether the alleged actions constituted cheating or fraudulent execution of documents under IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that alterations to the trust and the involvement of female trustees do not meet the criteria for criminal offences as asserted by the complainant.

Result: Petition allowed, FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. fir filed for trust-related fraud. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. historical context of the trust established. (Para 4 , 5)
3. claims of fraudulent action disputed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. court's consideration of criminality in trustee changes. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. legal procedural adherence discussed. (Para 14 , 15)
6. civil matters do not become criminal by nature. (Para 16 , 17)
7. court's final ruling on petition. (Para 18)

ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime.No.43/2022, dated 26.10.2022 on the file of the 1st respondent for the alleged offence under sections 415, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant namely Vairavel and the 1st accused are trustees of “K.S.P.Natarajan Trust” as per the Settlement Deed registered in Doc.No.755 of 1956 dated 23.04.1956 and the Trust Deed registered in Doc.No.2566 of 1956 dated 14.11.1956. But suppressing the same, the Petitioner/ 1st accused has executed two rectification Deeds dated 30.04.2020 and 21.05.2020 by inserting the names of the accused Nos.2 to 5 as Trustees and the petitioners / accused Nos.6 and 7 have joined hands with them to swindle the property belonging to the said Trust. Hence the 1st respondent has filed an FIR in Crime No.43 of 2022 on 26.10.2022 for offences under Sections 415, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, in view of the complaint made by the defacto complainant.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd petitioner is the wife of 1st petitioner and the 3 to 5 petitioners are the daughters of the 1st and 2nd Petitioners. The 6th and 7th petitioners are the employees of 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant are cousins. The said “K.S.P.Natarajan Trust” was formed to immortalize Mr.Natarajan, son of Mr.K.S.Shanmugavel Nadar, who had passed away in the year 1956. On 23.04.1956, the 1st petitioner’s grandfather Mr.K.S.Shanmugavel Nadar (1) and one Mr.Ganapathy, son of Mr.K.S.Shanmugavel Nadar (2), Mr.Mariappan Nadar (3) (father of the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant) and Mrs.Rajalakshmi Ammal (4) (mother of the 1st petitioner) have settled few of their properties vide a Settlement Deed in Doc.No.755 of 1956 in favour of K.S.P.Natarajan Trust, which was later registered vide a registered Trust Deed dated 14.11.1956 in Doc.No.2566 of 1956 on the file of the Thoothukudi, SRO. Initially, there were six trustees and Mr.K.S.Shanmugavel Nadar as its Managing Trustee. On 26.11.1974, a rectification deed was executed vide Doc.No. 662 of 1974 in which the Trustees were 1. K.S.Shanmugavel Nadar, 2. Ganapathi Nadar, 3. N.Rathinavel Nadar, the N.Rathnavel (1st petitioner himself) and 4.Rajalakshmi Nadar.

4. Again on 21.04.1975, the above said Trustees have executed a Rectification Deed vide Doc.No.846 of 1975 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar No-II, Thoothukudi. Thereafter, Mr. Mariappan and Mr. Ganapathy, respectively, have pre-deceased their father Mr.K.S.Shanmugavel Nadar. On 13.02.2017 another Rectification Deed was executed, in which the Trustees were the 1st and 2nd petitioners and the 1st petitioner as the Managing Trustee of the said K.S.P.Natarajan Trust. Thereafter, on 30.04.2020, another rectification Deed was executed in which the daughters of the 1st petitioner i.e. the 3 to 5 petitioners were added as the Trustees. When the same was presented before the Joint Sub Registrar No-II, Thoothukudi on 21.05.2020, the same was not registered and the Sub Registrar had demanded the 1st petitioner to appear before him on 26.05.2020 stating an objection made by the 2nd respondent. The 1st petitioner has challenged the said enquiry notice vide W.P.(MD) No.6322 of 2020 and an order of Interim Stay has been granted by this Court, vide order, dated 27.05.2020. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has also made complaints before the 1st respondent who had issued summon against the 1st petitioner to produce documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top