##PAGE1##

CRL MP No. 5814 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-03-2026

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL.O.P.No.12322 of 2023 and

CRL.M.P.No.7550 of 2023

Periyasamy, S/o. Maruthamuthu,

No.10/78, Ashwanth Aishwaryam, Venkatesha Nagar,

1st Cross Street, Virugambakkam,

Chennai. 92. ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, CCB -1,

Chennai District.

Crime No.15/2018.

2. S.Chidambaram (died) Saravanan Chidambaram,

S/o. Late.Chidambaram, No. 63, Astalakshmi Nagar, 1st Street,

Alapakkam, Valsarwakkam,

Chennai 600 116.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records of the case in Crime

No.15/2018 on the file of the CCB - 1, Chennai District and quash the same.

__________

Page1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2026 01:18:26 pm )

CRL MP No. 5814 of 2026

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Srinivasan for Mr.R.Sudhakar

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

for R2

Mr.SP.Chockalingam for R2 Order

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner in Crime No.15/2018 on the file of the CCB - 1, Chennai District, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471

read with Section 120-B of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that one Chidambaram lodged a

complaint before the 1^st respondent stating that his father, namely, Chockalingam purchased the property measuring an extent of 3352 sq.ft situate at Kamakoti Nagar, Pallikaranai, during the year of 1975. Further, his father passed away on 25.01.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his brother and sister obtained Death Certificate and Legalheirship Certificate. Since, then the defacto complainant is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While that being so, the petitioner herein connivance with others registered Power of Attorney in his name by impersonator and the Sub-Registrar also registered and release the document without verifying the genuineness. Further,

__________

Page2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2026 01:18:26 pm )

CRL MP No. 5814 of 2026

the petitioner executed Sale Deed to one Madhavi with an ill intention to grab the subject property. Based on the above complaint, a case in Crime No.15/2018 Under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC registered by the 1^st respondent. Whereas, the petitioner is shown as A1, one Chockalingam (Impersonator) is ranked as A2, A3 is the Sub-Registrar of Saidapet, A4 and A5 are witness to the subject document and A6 is the

purchaser of the property.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.15/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC of IPC, as

against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the

investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file

final report.

5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the

materials placed on record.

__________

Page3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2026 01:18:26 pm )

CRL MP No. 5814 of 2026

6.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific

allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further, the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such, this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accor