This Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings for offences including cheating and forgery was dismissed. The Court held that factual disputes, pending civil suits, and allegations of impersonation must be adjudicated by the trial Court.
The Crl.O.P. and its connected M.P. were dismissed and closed.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.30044 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.30044 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16245 & 16252 of 2019
1.K.C.Natarajan 2.Baby 3.Mallika 4.Rani 5.Jyothi Lakshmi 6.Sivakumar 7.Dhanusgodi 8.Venkidusamy 9.Bunk Selvam 10.Allimuthu 11.Senthilvel 12.Govindaraj 13.Arumugam 14.Siva ...Petitioners -Vs1.The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode. .. 1st respondent / Complainant 2.B.Geetha
... 2nd respondent / De-facto Complainant
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.30044 of 2019
Prayer:
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.649 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Erode and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.V.P.K.Gowthaman
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.649 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Erode, filed for the offence under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 427, 467, 468, 471, 109, 506(i) and 447 of IPC.
2.It is alleged that A1 whose name is K.C.Natarajan, impersonated
himself as another K.C.Natarajan and obtained release of document
2/6
Crl.O.P.No.30044 of 2019
mortgaged by the said K.C.Natarajan and thereafter, settled the property in favour of A2 to A7. After obtaining release of the documents, it is alleged that the accused disturbed the possession and damaged the property of the de-facto complainant, who is said to be the legal heir of the said K.C.Natarajan, who was impersonated.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a civil suit pending in respect of the same transactions and there are no allegations against the petitioners with regard to impersonation. The allegation is only against A1 and A2. The learned counsel would further submit that the alleged occurrence of demolishing the house relates to an adjacent property and not the property in question, which is the subject matter of the final report.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are allegations in the final report, which has to be adjudicated only before the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.
3/6
Crl.O.P.No.30044 of 2019
5.This Court on a reading of the final report and the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner finds that all the submissions are factual in nature and the same has to be adjudicated only before the trial Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the quash petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.16245 of 2019 is closed.
6.Since the most of the petitioners are ladies and some petitioners are very old, this Court dispenses with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court, unless the learned Judge considers their appearance necessary for the progress of the trial. Accordingly, Crl.M.P.No.16252 of 2019 is ordered.
10.04.2023
smv
Index : Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No
4/6
Crl.O.P.No.30044 of 2019
To,
5/6
Crl.O.P.No.30044 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
smv
Crl.O.P.No.30044 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16245 & 16252 of 2019
10.04.2023
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 427, 467, 468, 471, 109, 506(i) and 447 of IPC should be quashed.
Whether factual disputes and pending civil suit are sufficient grounds for quashing criminal proceedings.
Whether allegations of impersonation and interference with possession require trial before the Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.K.C.Natarajan 2.Baby 3.Mallika 4.Rani 5.Jyothi Lakshmi 6.Sivakumar 7.Dhanusgodi 8.Venkidusamy 9.Bunk Selvam 10.Allimuthu 11.Senthilvel 12.Govindaraj 13.Arumug
The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode.
B.Geetha
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
