The court quashed the investigating officer's final report due to violation of a stay order and failure to address a forgery allegation, but directed reinvestigation within three months to examine the genuineness of the receipt.
Final report set aside; reinvestigation directed within 3 months; connected miscellaneous petitions 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.4173 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P. No.4173 of 2021
&
Crl. M.P.Nos. 2627 of 2021 & 8923 of 2023
P.Krishnamurthy @ P.Kutty
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet.
2.R.Muthukrishnan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records and quash the
FIR in Crime No.1389 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the
1st respondent.
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.4173 of 2021
| For Petitioner : | Mr. John Sathyan Senior Counsel for Mr. N.Damodaran. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent 1 : | Mr. T.Harish Chowdhary for Ms. S.Hemalatha |
| For Respondent 2 : | Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor. |
O R D E R
The petition is filed to quash the FIR for the alleged offences
under Section 406 & 420 of IPC.
Rs.7,86,000/- to the defacto complainant and to secure repayment, the defacto complainant had executed a sale agreement and Power of Attorney; that though the defacto complainant was ready to repay the loan received by him, the accused refused to return the property and instead by using the said Power of Attorney A2 had executed a sale
2/8
Crl.O.P.No.4173 of 2021
deed in favour of A1.
the petitioner had filed this instant petition challenging the FIR on the ground that entire transaction is civil in nature and the registered documents were sought to be questioned by way of the impugned FIR. The learned senior counsel would submit that this Court had granted an interim stay of all further proceedings pending disposal of the Criminal Original Petition, however, the 1st respondent had investigated the case and filed the final report which is now pending in C.C.No.91 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet. There is a presumption in favour of the registered documents and the allegations are contrary to the registered documents and hence prayed for the quashing of the impugned proceedings.
complainant per contra submitted that in order to secure the loan
3/8
Crl.O.P.No.4173 of 2021
transaction, the 2nd respondent had executed a Power of Attorney and that the accused thereafter created a document to make it appear that
the 2nd respondent had received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from the petitioner.
(10) SCC 592 – Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, since 6 months time had lapsed after the interim order granted by this Court, they had filed the impugned final report and there is no impediment in doing the same.
4/8
Crl.O.P.No.4173 of 2021
that the allegation is that the registered documents were executed by the 2nd respondent under coercion and the 2nd respondent did not intend to sell the property or execute the Power of Attorney in favour of the accused. Such an allegation which is contrary to registered documents cannot be a subject matter of investigation by the Police in the absence of necessary ingredients attracting cognizable offence. However, the 2nd respondent would state that a receipt was forged by
the petitioner making it appear that the 2nd respondent had received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from them.
5/8
Crl.O.P.No.4173 of 2021
respondent has not dealt with the allegation of forgery of a receipt purported to have been executed by the 2nd respondent, the final report filed on the basis of the impugned FIR is liable to be set aside. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to re-investigate the case taking into consideration all the aspects including the genuineness of the receipt dated 25.05.2020 and file a final report within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by considering the documents produced by all the parties and conducting the investigation in a fair manner.
accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
26.06.2023
kan Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No
6/8
Crl.O.P.No.4173 of 2021
To
The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet.
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
kan
Crl.O.P.No. 4173 of 2021
7/8
Crl.O.P.No.4173 of 2021
26.06.2023
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR alleging civil dispute and coercion is maintainable when final report was investigated without bail condition.
Whether the final report is liable to be set aside for not addressing the specific allegation of forgery of a receipt.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Krishnamurthy @ P.Kutty
Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station
R.Muthukrishnan
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
