This order dismissed a criminal petition filed to quash proceedings for forgery and cheating based on an alleged civil property dispute. The court found prima facie material to frame charges, refusing to quash the final report.
Petitioner's prayer to quash the final report in C.C.No.56 of 2017 was rejected.
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 : 05.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.4512 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.2698 of 2019
A.Gunasekaran S/o, Appusamy
...Petitioner Vs.
W/o Late T.R.Muthumanickam
...Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the criminal case in C.C.No.56 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode and quash the same in respect of the petitioner(A2) is concerned, by allowing this quash petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For R1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : No appearance For R3 : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan for M/s.J.Titus Enock
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report in C.C.No.56 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode wherein cognizance against this petitioner has taken for the offence under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) IPC.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that the fabrication of document and act of fraud committed by the petitioner can be easily seen from the nature of the deed executed in their favour which trace the source through oral gift. Further for two properties ie., one at Erode and another at Thiruchengode, the document was registered at Erode. The Tahsildar of Erode in the course of investigation has given the statement that property at Erode mentioned in the deed is a public road and not a private property. Similarly, report given by the Sub-Registrar, Thiruchenngode in respect of one of the property covered under the sale deed dated 03.02.2012 is Government land. Thus the documents are alleged to have been fabricated by the petitioner herein in connivance with Mahaboob Sherif.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mfa
To
+1cc to M/s.J.Titus Enock, Advocate, S.R.No.43806
+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, S.R.No.43162
Crl.O.P.No.4512 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.2698 of 2019
SKM[co] NSK/21/07/2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings arising from a civil dispute regarding property title involving alleged fabrication of documents should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether prima facie material exists to frame charges for offences under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) IPC.
Whether the High Court can quash the final report filed in C.C.No.56 of 2017.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and anotherReferred¶20
Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2009 (8) SCC 751 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Gunasekaran S/o, Appusamy
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Karungalpalayam Police Station, Erode District.
Savithiri
S.N. Pandiyan S/o Natesan
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
