The Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashal of an FIR alleging forgery. Observing that the documents involved needed adjudication to determine validity and fraud, the Court held quashal did not arise at that stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 03.11.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Crl.OP No.28795 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.N.Lakshmanan 2.A.Balasubramanian 3.R.Ashok ..Petitioners Vs 1.State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram district. 2.N.Raji ..Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.156 of 2011 and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioner :Mr.N.R. Shanmugasundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Prem Anand For R.1 :Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor For R.2 :Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Prabhu ORDER
The petitioners are accused in Crime No.156 of 2011 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.
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.
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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by name Deivanayagi and Palani. Since, it has not come to the light
that the petitioners do not have title because the sale deed 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.
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.9, it has been stated as follows:-
“9.I submit that in the event of allegations of forgery in the power of attorney as alleged in the F.I.R.No.156 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.”
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.
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.
7.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jbm
To
1.Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Kancheepuram district.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Public Prosecutor, SR.52681
+ 1 cc to Mr.S. Prem Anand, Advocate SR.52187
Crl.OP No.28795 of 2014
KJI(CO)
Eu 19.11.14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Original Petition praying for quashal of the FIR can be allowed at this stage when documents are alleged to be forged and require adjudication.
Whether the allegations of forgery in the Power of Attorney and impersonation of land owners warrant investigation by the Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
I.N.Lakshmanan
A.Balasubramanian
R.Ashok
State
N.Raji
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
