Dismissed

P.Dhamodaran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Mar 2017CRL OP/21134/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under the IPC for alleged cheating and forgery regarding land property disputes. The court held that ownership rights are not to be decided in these summary proceedings and no prima facie ground existed for interference.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition disposed of; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

P.Dhamodaran Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 23.03.2017

¶2

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶3

Crl.O.P.No.21134 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶4

1.P.Dhamodaran
2.P.Balu
3.T.Srinivasan
4.T.Kanga Bai
5.Mohamad Iqubal
6.A.Anibha
7.K.Rajasekar
8.R.Vinoth @ Vinoth Krishtopher .. Petitioners
vs
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thakkolam Police Station,
Vellore District.
2.B.Kribhagaran .. Respondents

¶5

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.232 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam and quash the same.

¶6

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Vijendran

¶7

For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramesh Babu (for R1) Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records in C.C.No.232 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam and to quash the same.

¶10

The second respondent, who is defacto complainant had lodged a complaint to the 1^st respondent alleging that the petitioners have cheated him by creating false documents to grab the properties owned by him and his wife. Based on the complaint, the 1^st respondent registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2009 under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 read with 420, 120(b)

¶11

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

¶12

IPC. After completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thakkolam police station filed charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 471, 294(b), 447 and 501(i) IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam has taken the cognizance of the case in C.C.No.232 of 2010 and issued summons to the petitioners.

¶13

Challenging the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2010, the petitioners have filed this petition contending that the entire transactions according to the defacto complainant was civil in nature and there was no truth in the complaint. He would submit that petitioners 2, 4 and 5 have no way connected with even in the civil transaction and prayed for quashing of C.C.No.232 of 2010.

¶14

I heard Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Ramesh Babu, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the 1^st respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

¶15

The case of the defacto complainant is that he had purchased a total extent of 1.82 acres of lands in S.No.9A/1 - 1.38 acres and in S.No.9A/2 – 0.44 cents. His wife purchased total extent of 1.45 acres of lands in S.No.6A/1, 2 and S.No.8 in Nagarikuppam village and from the date of purchase they were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. While so, during the year 2007, the petitioners have conspired to cheat the complainant by alienating the said properties by forging documents and used the same knowing them to be forged documents and thereby, committed the offence.

¶16

In their petition, the petitioners have alleged that during the course of investigation, the 1^st respondent recovered documents from the 8^th petitioner, but it neither submitted before the learned Magistrate, nor returned to the 8^th petitioner. It has been stated that documents were handed over to the defacto complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the 8^th petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.13451 of 2010 before this Court and sought for direction to return the documents, wherein a direction was issued to the 8^th petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate. When the 8^th petitioner approached the learned Magistrate, Arakkonam, he returned the application endorsing that no such documents were filed before him. To substantiate the same, nothing has been produced by the petitioners.

¶17

According to the petitioner, the aforesaid single incident was enough to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. It was also contended that the entire transaction was purely civil in nature and the defacto complainant, who is a lawyer was very well aware the civil

¶18

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

¶19

disputes involved in this case. Instead seeking remedy by way of civil suit, the defacto complainant used short cut method in order to threaten the petitioners.

¶20

It appears that the defacto complainant and the petitioners were claiming right over the properties stated supra. But the rights and ownership cannot be decided in this proceedings. It is for the defacto complainant and the petitioners to establish their right and title before the appropriate forum. However, no valid grounds have been made out by the petitioners to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. In the absence of any material, it cannot be contended that the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police in a hurried manner. No prima facie ground has been made out to interfere with the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.232 of 2010 at present.

¶21

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vs
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thakkolam Police Station,
Vellore Dist.

¶22

+1cc to Mr.P.Vijendran, Advocate, S.R.No.18167

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.21134 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 rrs 29/10/2018

¶24

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

P.Dhamodaran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Dhamodaran 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

E.Ramanna Vs Inspector of Police

K.Priya Karthi Vs Inspector of Police

Mr.S.v.Chennakrishnan Vs Shri K.S.Ganapathy Subramanian

V.Sithaiyan Vs P.Radhakrishnan

S.Narayanan Vs a.Easwaran

S.B.Ganesh Kumar Vs the State Rep by