IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 23-01-2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 27-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL RC No. 1559 of 2024 and CRL MP NO. 12992 of 2024 Hasmath ... Petitioner/A4 Vs

1. N.Ashok Kumar ... 1^st respondent / Defacto complainant

2. State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police, CBCID Metro Wing, O/o. the Commissioner of Police, Old Commissioner Office Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ... 2^nd Respondent/ Investigating Officer PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 30.11.2023 passed in Crl.MP.No.8446 of 2021 in Cr.No.9 of 2018, on the file of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating cases to Chennai) and CBCID Metro cases, Egmore, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Sr. Counsel for Mr.Mohamed Rafi For Respondent(s): Mr.Manuraj (for R1)

Mr.R.Vinothraja (for R2)

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Order

The petitioner/A4 aggrieved by the impugned order by which the protest petition filed by the 1^st respondent/defacto complainant was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases [Relating to Cheating Cases to Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai, has preferred the above revision.

2. The 1^st respondent/defacto complainant herein had filed a complaint against the petitioner/A4 and six others stating that a property measuring 3 acres and 56 cents in T.S.No.131/1, 131/2A, 131/3A situated in Kalki Krishnamoorthy Salai, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, belonged to one Kandasamy Grammini; that the said Kandasamy Grammini executed a Will dated 07.12.1960, by which, the property devolved to his four sons and five daughters; the Will was Probated in OP No.201 of 1972; that the 1^st respondent/defacto complainant is the son of one Mohanambal, who is the daughter of the said Kandasamy Grammini; that therefore by virtue of the Will he has a share in the property; and that when he along with the other legal heirs of Kandasamy Grammini were taking steps to sell the property, they came to know that the petitioner herein and the other accused had conspired with the registration officials and inserted certain forged sheets into the records of the office of the Sub Registrar and created encumbrances so as to deprive the 1^st respondent and other family members of their property.

3. The complaint was registered in Cr.No.9 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 474 and 120(B) of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent police had conducted the investigation and filed a negative final report before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases to Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

4. The 1^st respondent/defacto Complainant herein filed a protest petition in Crl.MP.No.8446 of 2021 and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 had allowed the said protest petition, rejected the negative final report and directed the 2^nd respondent to conduct further investigation and file a final report.

5. Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has in effect ordered reinvestigation; that the learned Magistrate is not empowered to do so; that the investigating officer has elaborately considered the facts and filed the negative final report which cannot be faulted; that the 1^st respondent/defacto complainant is seeking to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case; that all the allegations have been found to be false by the investigating officer; and that the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for directing further investigation cannot be sustained.

6. Mr.Manuraj, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/defacto complainant, however, vehemently contended that the allegations of forgery cannot be said to be civil in nature; that the report is silent on certain vital aspects