Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 07.02.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE

G.K.

ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022

and

Crl.M.P(MD)Nos. 1894 and 1896 of 2022

1.Akila

2.Manikandan

3.Vijayakumar @ Vibinesh

4.Jeyalakshmi

5.Nirmal Kumar

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 & 7

Vs.

1.The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Karur, Karur District.

(Crime No.3 of 2013)

2.B.Vanitha

...Respondent/ Complainant

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C., to call for records and quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.167 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Karur, Karur District as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners

: Mr.B.Deepak

For R1

: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi

Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.167 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.II, Karur, Karur District, thereby taken cognizance for the

offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 416, 417, 465, 468, 471 IPC @

120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471 r/w 109 IPC in Crime No.3 of 2013, as

against the petitioners.

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1/Parasuraman had

obtained a property through Power Deed in the year 2002, then, the

property was divided as housing plots. The defacto

complainant/Vanitha had purchased 1200 square feet of land in the

lay-out of A1/Parasuraman vide document No.1567/2005, dated

2012.2005, registered with the Velliyanai Sub Registrar Office.

1/5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022

After that, A1/Parasuraman had made A2/Akila to impersonate as the

defacto complainant/Vanitha and had created a forged Power of

Attorney and registered the same in Document No.803/2008, dated

29.12.2008 before the Sub Registrar Office, Lalgudi. Further, the

said property was sold in favour of the wife of A1/Parasuraman, by

name Jansi Rani vide Document No.2869/2011, dated 09.08.2011. When

the defacto complainant/Vanitha came to know about the alleged

forgery, the accused had cancelled the Sale Deed executed in favour

of Jansi Rani, W/o. Parasuraman (A1) vide Document No.3278/2011,

dated 12.09.2011 and the forged Power Deed dated 21.09.2011, was

cancelled through Document No.320/2011.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any

base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.3 of

2013 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 416, 417, 465,

468, 471 IPC @ 120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471 r/w 109 IPC , as against

the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.

167 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Karur, Karur District. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been

examined in this case.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

6.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated

02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar &

Anr., as follows:-

" 12.So far as the second ground is

concerned, we are of the view that the High

Court while hearing the application under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction

to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and

record a finding that there were inconsistencies

in their statements and, therefore, there was no

prima facie case made out against respondent

No.2. In our view, this could be done only in

the trial while deciding the issues on the

merits or/and by the Appellate