Advocates:
['M/s Dhilipan Pandian R L', '', 'MEDIATION REPORT RECEIVED ON', 'Proof of service filed', '', 'Siva L', 'Public Prosecutor', '', 'Typed Set filed', 'Vak filed', '', 'Ponnuchamy A', 'Senrayar P', 'M/S Brijesh Kishore B']

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9208 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 10.08.2022

Pronounced on: 17.08.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9208 of 2021

and

Crl.M.P(MD) No.4714 of 2021

Ramakrishnan

...Petitioner

vs

1. The Inspector of Police

District Crime Branch

Madurai District

2. Balasubramanian

..Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to call for the entire records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.8 of

2021 pending of the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,

Madurai District and quash the same,

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Anand

for Mr.RL.Dhilipan Pandian

For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar

No.1

Additional Public Prosecutor

No.2

:Mr.B.Brijeshkishore

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9208 of 2021

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First

Information Report in Crime No. 8 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent

police.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner,

aged about 67 years, is an accused in a case registered in Crime No. 8 of 2021

for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC

on 20.04.2021. The petitioner and the defacto complainant are brothers. The

subject matter of property in S.Nos.61/5A, 11/4A1, 11/4A2 in Maruthangudi

Village, Kallikudi Taluk, Madurai District admeasuring to an extent of 1 Acre

16 cents, 13 cents, 98 cents respectively orginanlly owned by their grand father.

After him, their father succeeded. Their father died on 02.03.2008 and mother

died on 05.03.2017. The defacto complainant Balasubramanian was working at

United India Insurance Company as Vigilance Officer. The petitioner/accused

being the brother of defacto complainant, cultivated his lands. The petitioner

by influencing his mother and forging documents obtained property in his

name. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint on 20.04.2021.

2/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9208 of 2021

3. The learned counsel further submitted that the offence as stated in the

complaint is not made out and the petitioner has not committed any offence as

stated in the complaint. The property situated in S.Nos.11/4A1, 11/4A2 at

Maruthangudi Village, Kallikudi Taluk, Madurai District to an extent of 1 acre

had been sold by their father Ramaiah Thevar when the defacto complainant

was minor, for himself and on behalf of his minor son to her daughter

Maruthaiammal and Krishnan Thevar by way of sale deed dated 28.06.1982.

Subsequently, the above said Maruthaiammal executed a registered sale deed on

04.02.2004 in favour of the petitioner herein and he is in possession of the same

in pursuance of the above said sale deed. He did not forge any document. He

further submitted that the property in S.No.61/5A at Maruthangudi Village

Kallukudi Taluk , Madurai District measuring 1.16 cents was given to the

petitioner by his mother Muthammal by way of settlement deed dated

08.08.2012, therefore, the petitioner had not created any false documents. For

attracting the offence of forgery, making of false documents are essential. The

alleged sale deed and the settlement deed were executed by the petitioner’s

sister and mother and this petitioner did not make any false document.

Therefore, no case is made out to attract the offence under Section 465 of IPC

and further the offence under Section 420 of IPC being a consequential one it

3/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9208 of 2021

also cannot be sustained. Remaining provisions of IPC as stated in the First

Information Report is also not attracted, hence, continuation of investigation

would amount to misuse of criminal process. It is purely civil in nature.

4. To support his arguments the learned counsel placed r