Dismissed

N.Lakshmanan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Nov 2014CRL OP/28752/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an FIR alleging forgery of a power of attorney and impersonation. The Court held that the matter required investigation and adjudication regarding the validity of documents and title disputes before quashing could be considered, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition No.28752 of 2014 was dismissed as question of quashing did not arise at that stage requiring investigation.

N.Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 03.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.OP No.28752 of 2014

¶6

1.N.Lakshmanan
2.A.Balasubramanian
3.Ashok .. Petitioners
Vs

¶7

1.State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram district.

¶8

2.Palani .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.48 of 2012 and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Selvamani
For R.1 :Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham,
Public Prosecutor
For R.2 :Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Prabhu

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioners are accused 6, 7 & 8 in Crime No.48 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. Seeking to quash the said F.I.R., as against them, the petitioners are before this Court with this petition.

¶13

2.I have heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶14

3.The F.I.R., reads that the third accused one Mr.Rithish @ Shivakumar had created a forged power of attorney by arranging the first and second accused to impersonate the real owners of the land by name Deivanayagi and Palani. Since, it has not come to the light https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioners do not have title because the sale deed

¶15

executed by Mr.Rithish @ Shivakumar itself is not a valid document, when this matter came up for hearing previously, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would file affidavit.

¶16

4.Today, accordingly, one Mr.A.Balasubramanian, the second petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein, after having narrated the events, proceeded to the execution of the sale deed in paragraph No.6, it has been stated as follows:-

¶17

“6.I submit that in the event of

¶18

allegations of forgery in the power of attorney as alleged in the F.I.R.No.48 are proved to be correct in court of law and in the event it is held by the court that the company has no right on the land, the company will not claim title on the land and will have the right to pursue legal remedies which are available in law against the persons, as per law, who have been involved in playing fraud and are responsible for causing loss to the company.”

¶19

5.From the above affidavit, it is crystal clear that the matter requires investigation. Even according to the petitioners, in the event it is proved that the deed of power of attorney is not a true document and in the event it is held by the Court that the company has no right on the land, the company will not claim title on the land. This statement made in the affidavit would go to show that the matter requires investigation and adjudication by the Court as to whether the document is a forged one or not. Therefore, question of quashing the F.I.R., does not arise at this stage.

¶20

6.Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that a perusal of the general power of attorney would go to show that the persons who impersonated the original owners have made signatures of the original owners and even the photographs affixed are not that of the real owners. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the said original deed showing the photographs, signatures and thumb impressions of accused 1 and 2. In my considered opinion, the offence alleged is so heinous wherein, even the Registrar had been induced to register the document on false representation. If these kinds of offences are treated lightly certainly, it will lead to lot of other complications. This matter in my considered opinion, requires thorough investigation and therefore, question of quashing the F.I.R., does not arise.

¶21

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

¶22

7.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶23

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
jbm
To
1.Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Kancheepuram district.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.SR NO 51991
+1cc to Mr.K.Selvamani,Advocate SR.No.52272
Crl.OP No.28752 of 2014
kji[co]
gp/19.11

¶24

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

N.Lakshmanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Lakshmanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Park-in-Mills Limited Vs M/S.La Freight Lift Pvt.Ltd

N.Chellappa Gounder Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Sakthivel Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Geetha Nayaki Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police