BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2172 & 2174 of 2025

1.Kanagaraj

2.Vincent

3.Sunil Kumar ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2,3 & 4 Vs

1.The State of Tamil Needy, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari.

2.Krishnakumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.480 of 2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Kuzhithurai and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Kandasamy Sriram For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side)

For R2 : Mr.T.Arul

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused Nos.

2,3 & 4 in C.C.No.480 of 2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai seeking to quash the charge-sheet.

2. A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the petitioners have been charged with offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, one Palaiyan had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his son, who is arrayed as accused No.1, on 03.07.2009. The said document has been attested by accused Nos.2 & 3 and the fourth accused is the document writer.

4. It is the contention of the defacto complainant that the said Palaiyan was entitled to only 40 links of land. However, he had settled 44 links in favour of his son, who is arrayed as accused No.1. Therefore, the present complaint has been lodged.

5. A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that, other than attesting the documents or drafting it, accused Nos.2 to 4 are not impleaded in any other activities.

6. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that accused Nos.1 & 2 are close relatives of the beneficiary of the document, and the accused No.3 is also a cousin. They have colluded together and executed the present document only in order to disturb the title and possession of the defacto complainant.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, as attestors, they were not aware of the contents of the documents and the document writer was also not concerned with the contents of the document except for carrying out the details from the parent document.

8. Heard both sides.

9. A perusal of the charge-sheet does not reveal that the attestors or the document writer had any intention to grab the lands of the defacto complainant. An attestor is not expected to know the contents of the documents. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the defacto complaint's mother has already filed a suit in O.S.No.499 of 2023 against the accused persons seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession and the suit is pending. In such circumstances, the rights of the defacto complainant would not in anyway be affected by quashing of the charge-sheet.

10.Without prejudice to the contentions of the defacto complainant in the civil suit, the charge-sheet laid against the petitioners in C.C.No.480 of 2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the charge-sheet is quashed only as against the accused Nos.2,3 & 4 alone.

11.With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

05.03.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No am To

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari.

2.The Judicial Magistrate II, Kuzhithurai

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

am

05.03.2026