BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1722 of 2024 in Crl.MP.(MD) No.1246 of 2024 S.Muthupandi ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep . by the Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.59/2023 .... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

2. A.Kirubakaran Arasu ... 2^nd Respondent /

De-facto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the final report dated 01.05.2023 filed by the 1^st respondent in CC.No.201/2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For R-1 : Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R-2 : Mr. I.Suthakaran

ORDER

Preface:

The present Criminal Original Petition invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to interdict the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The core issue that arises for consideration in this petition lies within a narrow yet significant compass: whether a prosecution alleging forgery of documents produced before a Court can be initiated on the basis of a private complaint and police report, in the absence of a complaint by the Court concerned as mandated under Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the FIR and the Final Report, is that the petitioner is alleged to have fabricated Adangal Extracts purportedly issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Melamudimannarkottai, for the fasli years 1415 to 1418 in respect of Survey Nos.296/11 and 296/7.

4. It is the further allegation that the petitioner had relied upon the said documents as evidence in a civil suit in O.S.No.69 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Mudukulathur, against the de-facto complainant.

5. On the basis of the said allegation, the second respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint on 16.10.2022, pursuant to which the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 465, 468 and

471 IPC.

6. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a Final Report dated 01.05.2023, which was taken on file in C.C.No.

201 of 2023 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi.

Grounds for quash:

7. The petitioner assails the impugned prosecution primarily on the following grounds:

(i) That the allegations pertain to the use of forged documents in judicial proceedings, thereby attracting the bar under Section

195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., 1973.

(ii) That no complaint has been lodged by the concerned Civil Court before which the documents were produced.

(iii) That the police have no jurisdiction to register an FIR or file a Final Report in respect of offences falling within the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973.

(iv) That the entire prosecution is vitiated for want of compliance with the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973.

(v) That the proceedings are maliciously instituted at the instance of the de-facto complainant out of personal animosity.

Arguments on either side:

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the gravamen of the allegation is the production of forged documents before a Civil Court, and therefore, the offence squarely falls within Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., 1973. It is further submitted that in view of the statutory embargo, no Court can take cognizance of such offences except upon a complaint in writing by the Court before which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

9. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar wherein it has been categorically held that pros