Dismissed

R.Murugesan, S/O.P.Rasu, v. the Inspector of Police(Crime)

Madras HC16 Oct 2014CRL OP/7940/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition to quash an FIR based on a compromise between the accused and the de facto complainant. Rejecting quashing because the offences involved impersonating a deceased woman to defraud a Sub Registrar and forged government records, which are non-compoundable and affect public officials.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; investigation to be completed.

R.Murugesan, S/O.P.Rasu, Vs the Inspector of Police(Crime) — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16..10..2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7940 of 2014

¶6

1.R.Murugesan 2.K.Pasumpon

¶7

... Petitioners/Accused 2 & 3 Vs. 1.The Inspector of Police [Crime], J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai 600 032. 2.S.Prabhu ... Respondents/Defacto Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.752 of 2009 pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent police and to quash the same. For petitioners : Mr.C.D.Johnson For respondent(s): Mr.D.Sivaram Kumar Government Advocate for R1 Mr.G.Hariharan for R2 ORDER

¶8

1.The Inspector of Police [Crime],
J-3, Guindy Police Station,
Chennai 600 032.
2.S.Prabhu

¶9

The petitioners are 2nd Accused and 3rd Accused in Crime No.752 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent Police. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the said case. There is yet another accused by name Kumaran @ Ravikumar, who is the 1st Accused. The offence said to have been committed by the accused are punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The said case was registered on 01.09.2009. Now, seeking to quash the said FIR, the petitioners are before this court with this original petition.

¶10

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1^st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶11

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled

¶12

between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent by means of a compromise. A compromise has also been reached between the parties.

¶13

A perusal of the FIR would go to show that the landed property in question was owned by one Mrs.R.Chitra. The 2nd respondent / de facto complainant is her son. Mrs.R.Chitra died as early as on 30.07.1989, but, according to the FIR, the petitioners herein in connivance with the 1^st Accused had arranged for a different woman to impersonate Mrs.R.Chitra and by means of such impersonation, a forged Power of Attorney was created in favour of the 1st petitioner herein as though it was executed by Mrs.R.Chitra. This document came into being on 29.10.2004 and the same was registered as Doc.No.1509/2004 at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Velacherry. The 2nd respondent has further stated that he was not aware of the above transaction and he came to know of the same only when the 2^nd petitioner attempted to make construction on the property. It is stated that based on the above forged power of attorney, the property was sold to the 2nd petitioner. On these allegations, the above case has been registered.

¶14

Now, the question is whether on the basis of the compromise reached between the parties the FIR can be quashed. It is needless to point out that some of the offences for which the present case has been registered are non-compoundable. That is the reason why, the petitioners are before this court invoking the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgements including in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (3) CTC 54 (SC) has held that in respect of noncompoundable offences considering the compromise between the parties, the court could invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also cautioned that such quashing should not be done in a mechanical fashion in every case simply on the basis of compromise. While deciding the question as to whether to accept the compromise or not, the court has to take into consideration the gravity of the offence, impact of the offence on the society and similar other elements. Here in this case, had it been a simple case of cheating between the parties alone, I would have not hesitated to accept the compromise and to quash the FIR. But, here, a woman was set up to impersonate Mrs.R.Chitra to cheat the Sub Registrar, who registered the document. There could be no compromise between the Sub Registrar, who registered the document and the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the offence of cheating was committed as against the Sub Registrar, who was made to believe that the woman who appeared before him was, in fact, Mrs.R.Chitra. As I have already pointed out, Mrs.R.Chitra died as early as on 30.07.1989 whereas the General Power of Attorney was executed on 29.10.2004. Since offence had not been committed as against the 2nd respondent alone and since as I have already pointed out, the offence of cheating was committed against the Sub Registrar and since a woman, who was emboldened to impersonate Mrs.R.Chitra to go https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to Sub Registrar's Office and to make the Sub Registrar to believe

¶15

that she was Mrs.R.Chitra, who has not been so far secured and since government records have been forged in terms of Section 463 of IPC, I am of the view it is not an appropriate case where the FIR could be quashed on the basis of the compromise reached between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent. If this kind of compromise is accepted by this court, then, it will by implication encourage such kind of unscrupulous people to create such kind of documents and to cheat even the Government Officials. The offences alleged, in my considered opinion, are heinous and barbaric and they have greater impact on the society and the Governmental Organisations. Therefore, I am not inclined to quash the FIR on the basis of the compromise reached between the parties.

¶16

In view of the above, the criminal original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The 1^st respondent is directed to complete the investigation, find out the identity of the woman, who allegedly had impersonated Mrs.R.Chitra and to file appropriate final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kmk
To
1.The Inspector of Police [Crime],
J-3, Guindy Police Station,
Chennai 600 032.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr. C.D.Johnson,Advocate, SR.No.49779
Crl.O.P.No.7940 of 2014
sr(co)
pmk.17.11.2014

¶18

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

R.Murugesan, S/O.P.Rasu, v. the Inspector of Police(Crime)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Murugesan, S/O.P.Rasu, v. the Inspector of Police(Crime)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sailu Vs Securities and Exchange Borad

State Rep. by Vs K. Mani @ Velumani

Mrs.P.Seethalakshmi Vs M/S.Weizmann Forex Ltd.

R.Padmanaban Vs Srimathi Parameswari

Mr.Gallalappa Vs M/S.Ganga Finance

Murali, S/O.Venugopal, Vs State Rep.by the Inspector of