Dismissed
Mohamed Yusuf v. M.Kasi Viswanathan
Madras HCCRL OP(MD)/5883/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.(MD)No.5883 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 19.04.2023
Delivered on : 06.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5883 of 2020
Mohamed Yusuf ... Petitioner / 8th Accused
Vs.
M.Kasi Viswanathan ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.497 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and to quash the same inso far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondent : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
O RDER
This petition is filed to quash the case in C.C.No.497 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5883 of 2020
the third accused sold the property in Town Survey No.2624 favour of the first accused. Later on, he filed a rectification deed and modified the number as Town Survey No.2625. Based on the rectification deed, the first accused trespassed into the property of the respondent and he constructed a house by availing loan from Bajaj Finance Ltd., where, the fifth and sixth accused were working. The fourth accused being a tenant has paid rent and he got receipts for the same. Later, the fourth accused created some documents as if he is the owner of the property and he sold the property to the first accused. In the forged sale deeds, the third and fourth accused have signed as witnesses and a private complaint was lodged against the petitioner and others in C.C.No.497 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
same could not constitute any offence, warranting criminal prosecution. There is no averments in the entire complaint to attract an offence of forgery or cheating against the petitioner. There is no overt act against
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5883 of 2020
quashed.
the petitioner and prayed that the case against the petitioner is to be quashed.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5883 of 2020
the rectification deed. The claim of the respondent is that they are aware of the rectification deed and they colluded with the other accused. Whether the petitioner was aware of the offence at the time of execution of the sale deed cannot be decided at this stage. Whether the petitioner colluded with the other accused or whether the petitioner is an innocent witness can be decided only after the completion of the trial.
dismissed.
NCC : Yes/No 06.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Ls To
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5883 of 2020
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5883 of 2020
R.THARANI. J.
Ls
Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5883 of 2020
06.06.2023
Mohamed Yusuf
M. Kasi Viswanathan
Mrs. Justice R. Tharani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court