Allowed

C.R.Sivasubramanian v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Jan 2020CRL OP/15642/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the Sub-Registrar, who was a co-accused in a conspiracy to forge and register a sale deed. The court quashed the case against the petitioner relying on a prior order quashing the main proceedings against the accused.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.161 of 2011 pending against the petitioner are quashed.

C.R.Sivasubramanian Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.01.2020

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.15642 of 2011

¶5

C.R.Sivasubramanian ... Petitioner/10th Accused

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Kunnathur Police Station, Tiruppur District. (Cr.No.1048 of 2010)

¶8

2.A.Rangasamy ...1st Respondent/Complainant ...2nd Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶9

Prayer: This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.161 of 2011 on the file of the the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran

¶11

For R1 : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj For R2 : Mr.P.K.Natarajan O R D E R

¶12

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.161 of 2011 on the file of the the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, quash the same.

¶13

2.The petitioner herein has been arrayed as A10. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the purchaser, Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are the vendors, Accused Nos.6 to 8 are the witnesses and Accused No.9 is the document writer and scribe of the document number 5883 of 2009 dated 24.09.2009. The petitioner herein was the Sub-Registrar of Kunnathur. According to the prosecution all the accused have indulged in a criminal

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

conspiracy and created a forged sale deed involving the property belonging to one A.Rangaswamy (defacto complainant) situated in S.F.No.224/8, Santhi Palayam Village and they have presented the said forge sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Kunnathur, who is the petitioner herein and the petitioner has registered the document without collecting stamp duty and without verification of proper revenue records and thereby caused loss to the Government and hence, he committed the offence.

¶17

3.On filing the final report, the case has been taken on file in C.C.No.161 of 2011 on the file of the District Magistrate Cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. Now, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking to quash the above said proceedings pending in C.C.No.161 of 2011.

¶18

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute between the matter pertains to Civil Dispute between second respondent/defacto complainant one A.Rangaswami and the first accused in the crime namely V.A.Visuwanathan and the said first accused has filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court to the effect that he would not claim any title or ownership in respect of the subject property measuring 21/2 cents situated in S.F.No.224/8 Santhi Palayam Village and that he would work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court wherein Civil suits have already been filed by both the parties in respect of the very same subject property and therefore he prays this Court to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner herein.

¶19

5.This Court, vide order, dated 22.01.2020 in Crl.O.P.Nos.1069 of 2014 and 3062 of 2012, while considering the affidavit of undertaking filed by the Accused No.1, namely, V.A.Viswanathan, quashed the proceedings pending in C.C.Nos.161 of 2011 and 162 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

¶20

6.In view of the above, since the petitioner herein is A10 in the above C.C.No.161 of 2011 and already this Court quashed the proceedings as against the main accused A1 and others, the proceedings pending as against the petitioner herein are also hereby quashed.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.161 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai are hereby quashed.

¶24

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
gbi
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kunnathur Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
2.The District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate,
Perundurai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
+1 cc to Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran Advocate sr4437
Crl.O.P.No.15642 of 2011
ca(co)
aa14/05/2020

¶25

3/4

¶26

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

C.R.Sivasubramanian v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R.Sivasubramanian 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

V.Vijayakumar Vs the Inspecto Rof Police

P.K.Janeesh Vs M/S.Balaji Finance

Anbarasan Vs State Rep.by

K.Gnanasambandham Vs C.Sasi

Maragadarsi Chit Fund Ltd. Vs T.Kesavan

D.Venkatapathy Vs State by