Allowed

M.Ganga Nivethita v. the State by

Madras HC7 Jun 2023CRL OP/6279/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a criminal prosecution under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC against petitioners alleged to have forged a lease agreement. The court held that since the underlying landlord-tenant dispute was settled and the original document was not seized for forensic verification, the prosecution was liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed; the impugned prosecution is quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

M.Ganga Nivethita Vs the State by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6279 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.6279 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4149 & 4151 of 2021

¶7

1.M.Ganga Nivethita 2.Mohan Babu ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State by The Inspector of Police, CCB-II, Crime No.229 of 2018, Chennai. 2.C.Vedagiri ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.16 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s.T.C.Gopalakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor [R.1] : Mr.S.Silambu Selvan [R.2]

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.6279 of 2021

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petition is to quash the final report filed for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC.

¶17

It is alleged in the final report that the petitioners were tenants

¶18

under the 2^nd respondent; that the petitioners had forged the signature of the 2^nd respondent and made it appear that there was a lease agreement between

¶19

the 2^nd respondent and the petitioners for the period from 18.03.2016 to 17.03.2021.

¶20

3.(a). The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was

¶21

a landlord-tenant dispute between the parties and in fact the petitioners have already vacated the disputed premises and handed over the possession to the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioners had vacated the premises, the 2nd respondent had withdrawn the RCOP.No.49/2018, on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Poonamallee on 14.08.2019.

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.6279 of 2021

¶25

3.(b). The learned counsel further submitted that the original lease agreement was not seized by the 1st respondent police and hence the lease agreement was not subjected to any examination by the expert to ascertain whether it was forged.

¶26

The learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are allegations in the impugned final report which have to be adjudicated only by the Trial Court. However, they both admitted that the original lease agreement was not seized by the 1st respondent police and hence could not be sent to Forensic Science Department for confirming whether there was forgery.

¶27

In view of the above fact that the dispute between the landlord and the tenants had already been settled before the Rent Control Court and the petitioners had vacated the premises and the fact that the alleged forged lease agreement had not been seized by the 1st respondent police and sent to the Forensic Department for confirming whether there was any forgery, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending. Since the alleged allegation of forgery cannot be

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.6279 of 2021

¶31

established, in the absence of the original document, this Court is of the view that the impugned prosecution as against the petitioners is liable to be quashed for the aforesaid reasons.

¶32

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶33

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶34

07.06.2023

¶35

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No shr

¶36

To.

¶37

The Inspector of Police, CCB-II, Chennai.

¶38

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.6279 of 2021

¶42

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶43

shr

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.6279 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4149 & 4151 of 2021

¶45

07.06.2023

¶46

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

¶47

5/5

M.Ganga Nivethita v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ganga Nivethita v. the State 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

Anitha Vs the State Rep.by

R.Ramamurthi Vs State Rep by

Kalaivannan @ Kalai Vs State Rep by

Heerchand Surana Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry

Chainsingh Vs State Rep by

Ameena Bagam Vs State by