Partly allowed

K.S.Rajagopalan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC26 Apr 2023CRL OP/4694/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed the First Information Report filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 34 IPC, holding him a victim of fraud who acted in bonafides by cancelling the sale agreement. The court directed the police to investigate the actual perpetrators and file a Final Report within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report was quashed insofar as it was against the petitioner. The First Respondent directed to file a Final Report within eight weeks addressing the crime committed by Prabakaran

K.S.Rajagopalan Vs State Rep.by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.3006 of 2021

K.S.Rajagopalan

...Petitioner / A4

-Vs-

1.The State rep. by: The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram Kanchipuram District. (Crime No.15 of 2015)

¶11

2.R.B.Chendamarai ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.15 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent and to quash the same.

¶13

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

¶14

1/7

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021

¶16

For Petitioner	: Mr.N.Manoharan
For R1	: Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R2	: No appearance

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶19

First Information Report in Crime No.15 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent, filed for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 34 IPC.

¶20

2.It is alleged in the First Information Report that the defacto complainant and her husband jointly acquired a land measuring an extent of 1.21 acres in S.Nos.1395C/1B1A, 1395C/1B1B and 1395C/1B1C of Thaiyur Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, by a registered Sale Deed dated 06.05.2002; that in the year 2011 and 2012 several sale deeds were executed fraudulently in respect of the said property and all the sale deeds were declared as null and void by the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpet; that the defacto complainant's husband transferred his undivided share to her mother

¶21

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

¶22

2/7

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021

¶24

Sarojini Sellamuthu; that while so, fraudulent sub-division of the property was created in the name of the dead person by name Kenneth

¶25

Anthony and then a fabricated Power of Attorney was executed on 02.06.2020 and subsequent Sale Agreement on 06.06.2020; with the said power, the defacto complainant and her husband were impersonated by fraudulently obtaining Adhaar Card; that the said Power of Attorney was created with one Prabakaran. The said Prabakaran had in turn executed an Agreement of Sale with the petitioner agreeing to sale the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,00,00,000/-. Hence the complaint.

¶26

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a respectable citizen, who retired as General Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Limited; that he entered into a sale agreement with the said Prabakaran, on the false representation that he was the lawful Power of Attorney Agent of the owners of the property; that he paid an advance of Rs.50,00,000/-; that after the petitioner came to know that the said Prabakaran had created forged documents, he had executed

¶27

a registered cancellation of Sale Agreement by Document No.9681 of

¶28

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

¶29

3/7

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021

¶31

2020 on 15.10.2020; that the said Prabakaran has not repaid the amount

¶32

received by him and that the petitioner is only a victim of the crime and is not liable for the alleged offences said to have been committed by the said Prabakaran. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the First Information Report in Crime No:15 of 2020.

¶33

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation revealed that Prabakaran had impersonated and created a fabricated power of attorney in his favour and has cheated the petitioner as well. The petitioner had cancelled the agreement entered into between the said Prabakaran after he came to know about the alleged fraud. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the respondent police is taking all efforts to take action against the Prabakaran and other accused. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.

¶34

5.Though notice was served on the 2^nd respondent and a learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.

¶35

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

¶36

4/7

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021

¶38

6.This Court finds that admittedly the petitioner on coming to know about the alleged fraud committed by the said Prabakaran had cancelled the sale agreement by a registered deed executed on 15.10.2020 in Doc.No.9681 of 2020. The petitioner also claims that he has not received the advance amount paid by him to the said Prabakaran. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view, that the petitioner is a victim in the transaction. He had shown his bonafides by cancelling the sale agreement as early as on 15.10.2020. Therefore, the impugned First Information Report as against the petitioner / A4 is an abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned First Information Report on the file of the 1^st respondent insofar as the petitioner / A4 is concerned. However, the 1^st respondent shall take action against the perpetrators of the crime including the said Prabakaran and other accused persons in accordance with law and file a Final Report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

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

¶40

5/7

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021

¶42

7.With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶43

allowed. Connected Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶44

26.04.2023

¶45

smv

¶46

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶47

To,

¶48

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram Kanchipuram District.

¶49

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶50

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

¶51

6/7

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021

¶53

SUNDER MOHAN,J. smv

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.4694 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.3006 of 2021

¶55

26.04.2023

¶56

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

¶57

7/7

K.S.Rajagopalan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Rajagopalan v. State Rep.by

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

Hh Pooyam Thirunal Gowri Parvathi Bai Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Its

State of Tamil Nadu, Vs D.Kalavani

P.Shanmugam Vs the State Rep by Its

Karthikeyani Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

R. Govindan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Rajkumar Balsingh Vs State