Dismissed

T.Ganapathi v. Suleka

Madras HC28 Aug 2023CRL RC/1472/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's order dismissing a private complaint for cheating and forgery. The Court held that the dispute was essentially a civil matter regarding ownership and recovery of money, lacking criminal color.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 in C.M.P.No.2037/2022 was confirmed.

T.Ganapathi Vs Suleka — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1472 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1472 of 2023

¶7

T.Ganapathi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Suleka

¶10

2.Suguna

¶11

3.Magesh

¶12

4.Murali

¶13

5.Arjunan

¶14

6.V.N.Palaniyappan

¶15

7.Selvam

¶16

8.Govindaraj

¶17

9.Karnan … Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the orders dated 12.05.2023 in

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.R.C.No.1472 of 2023

¶22

C.M.P.No.2037/2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Kallakurichi.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gunasekar

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Challenge in this criminal revision case is made to the orders

¶26

dated 12.05.2023 in C.M.P.No.2037/2022 passed by the learned Judicial

¶27

Magistrate No.1, Kallakurichi.

¶28

2.The revision petitioner filed a private complaint under Section

¶29

200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents herein for the offences punishable

¶30

under Sections 193, 196, 406, 417, 463, 467 & 468 IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kallakurichi after perusing the documents and the deposition of the complainant and witnesses, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.PC on 12.05.2023. Aggrieved over the orders

¶31

passed by the trial court judge, the present revision is filed.

¶32

3.The case of the revision petitioner / complainant is that the

¶33

Page 2 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.1472 of 2023

¶36

respondents

¶37

respondents 1 to 3 had approached the revision petitioner to sell their lands to him and also obtained money from him. However, on 29.03.2012, the accused created a forged sale agreement in favour of a third party / fifth respondent who in turn filed a suit in O.S.No.419/2018 before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi for specific performance of contract. According to the complainant, since the respondents 1 to 3 had created a forged sale agreement , they must be punished for the offences under Sections 193, 196, 406, 417, 463, 467 & 468 IPC.

¶38

Mr.V.Gunasekar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the respondents 1 to 3 , namely, Sulekha, Suguna and Magesh promised the present revision petitioner / complainant to sell their land in his favor and also obtained money from him. However, they did not keep up their promise and on the other hand, they had executed a sale agreement in favour of Arjunan the fifth respondent on 29.03.2012 who in turn filed the suit in O.S.No.419/2018 before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi. According to him, the said suit was subsequently dismissed

¶39

as withdrawn by him. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Page 3 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.R.C.No.1472 of 2023

¶42

would contend that since the respondents 1 to 3 had created a forged sale agreement , they must be punished for the offences as alleged in the revision petitioner's complaint.

¶43

At the outset, it may be observed that the property does not

¶44

belong to the present revision petitioner. Even, according to him, the property belongs to the respondents 1 to 3 and that they had promised to sell the property in his favour. Strangely he contends that the respondents 1 to 3 had created a forged sale agreement in favour of the fifth respondent. If the respondents 1 to 3 have obtained money from the revision petitioner he has to file a civil suit to recover his money and no criminal colour can be given to a civil dispute. The learned Magistrate h ad considered all these aspects and dismissed the private complaint filed

¶45

by the present revision petitioner .

¶46

Page 4 of 6

¶47

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

¶48

Crl.R.C.No.1472 of 2023

¶49

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the

¶50

Criminal Revision is dismissed. The orders dated 12.05.2023 in C.M.P.No.2037/2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kallakurichi, is confirmed.

¶51

28.08.2023

¶52

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl To The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Kallakurichi.

¶53

R. HEMALATHA, J.

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

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

¶56

Crl.R.C.No.1472 of 2023

¶57

mtl

¶58

Crl.R.C.No.1472 of 2023

¶59

28.08.2023

¶60

Page 6 of 6

¶61

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

T.Ganapathi v. Suleka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ganapathi v. Suleka

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

Kumar@Sarathkumar Vs State Rep by

M.Saravanan Vs v.Divya

M.Saravanan Vs Purushothaman

Aphro Trust Vs the Superintendent of Police

E.Balasubramaniam Vs B.Sangeetha

Karuppusamy Vs State Rep by