Dismissed

Jothi Lakshmi v. the State

Madras HC25 Apr 2023CRL OP/32840/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal quash petition filed under Section 482 CrPC against a partner accused of conspiracy in forgery to obtain a bank loan. The court held that questions of involvement in conspiracy could not be adjudicated in a quash petition and must be left for evidence at the trial stage.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Jothi Lakshmi Vs the State — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 20.04.2023

¶4

Pronounced on : 25.04.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019

¶8

and

¶9

Crl.M.P.Nos.18110 and 18111 of 2019

Jothi Lakshmi

... Petitioner/A2

Vs.

1.The State Rep by its Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch (CCB) Tirupur City Tiruppur District (FIR No.28/2018)

¶14

...1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶15

2.Jegaratchagan

¶16

...2^nd Respondent/Defacto complainant

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/7

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019

¶20

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the filing of the Final Report/Charge Sheet No.FR-19/2019 dated 18.09.2019 in FIR No.28/2018 on the file of CCB, Tiruppur City District in C.C.No.647 of 219 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No-I, Tiruppur and to quash the C.C.No.647 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No-I, Tiruppur filed against the petitioner herein/Accused No.2.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar

¶22

Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Kalaivanan Mr.G.Rajan

¶23

For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran

¶24

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶25

For R2 : Mr.J.Pothiraj

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petition is to quash the final report filed for the alleged offences under Sections 120 B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.

¶28

It is alleged in the final report that the accused had obtained a

¶29

loan from the State Bank of Mysore; that they had forged a 2/7

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019

¶32

Memorandum relating to the deposit of Title Deeds, making it appear that it was registered as Document No.1083 of 2008; that A1 had created a forged Sale Deed dated 12.05.1982; that they had obtained a total loan of Rs.1,03,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Three Lakhs only) producing such forged documents in connivance with the Bank officials and hence committed the above said offences.

¶33

The Petitioner is arrayed as A2 in the final report. Mr.B.Kumar,

¶34

the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/A2, submitted that the allegation is that A1, A4 and A5 had created a false document and made it appear that a Memorandum relating to the deposit of Title Deeds was executed on 24.06.2008 by Document No.1083 of 2008. The petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged forgery, admittedly, though she was a partner of the Firm by the name of Thanush Packaging Industries, which had availed the loan. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court Sheila Sebastian vs. R.Jawaharaj and another reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 held that unless there is an investigation with regard to who committed the forgery, the charge of forgery cannot be imposed on persons, even if the accused is the beneficiary. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no 3/7

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019

¶37

evidence against the petitioner to show that she was involved in any of the offences.

¶38

Mr. A.Damodaran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶39

appearing for the first respondent/complainant and Mr. J.Pothiraj, the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant, on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner is a partner in the firm by the name Thanush Packaging Industries; that the petitioner is one of the applicants who had signed the loan application form. The forgery and the loan obtained on the basis of a false document are acts of conspiracy in which the petitioner is also involved. The question as to whether the petitioner is involved in the conspiracy or not is a matter for evidence and cannot be adjudicated in the quash petition. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.

¶40

This Court finds that the allegation against the petitioner is that

¶41

she was a partner of Thanush Packaging Industries and she had conspired with other accused to commit the offences of forgery and obtain a loan based on such forged documents. The role played by the

¶42

petitioner according to the prosecution, is that she had signed the

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

4/7

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019

¶46

application form for the loan. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the question of whether the petitioner is involved in the conspiracy or not cannot be gone into the quash petition. It is needless to say that it is for the prosecution to establish the offence of forgery and who committed the said offence besides the offence of conspiracy in the trial.

¶47

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this quash petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the Trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶48

25.04.2023

¶49

¶50

NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Order

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5/7

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019

¶54

¶55

1.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch (CCB)

¶56

Tirupur City Tiruppur District.

¶57

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104.

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

6/7

¶60

Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019

¶61

SUNDER MOHAN. J, dk

¶62

Pre Delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.32840 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.18110 and 18111 of 2019

¶63

25.04.2023

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

7/7

Jothi Lakshmi v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jothi Lakshmi v. the State

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

Muthukumar Vs State by

Kavitha Vs Antony Maria Prasand

K.R.Suresh Vs State by

Ravichandran Vs the Station House Officer

P.Shanmugam Vs State Rep.by

Nattarayasamy Vs the State by Inspector of Police