Petitioner sought to quash a land-grabbing case alleging he was only a power-of-attorney holder who later cancelled it after learning of fraudulent documents. The State relied on his confession statement showing connivance. The court found sufficient material under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 109 and 120(B) IPC and dismissed the quash petition.
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.11025 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.11025 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7535 & 7536 of 2024
Suresh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch III, Team 23 A, Land Grabbing Investigation Wing-II, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
2.Makesh ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records relating to the criminal proceedings made in C.C.No.7141 of 2023 in Crime No.124 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ganesha Moorthy For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/4
Crl.O.P.No.11025 of 2024
O R D E R
Th e petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused in a case where the property of one Usharani died in the year 1999, was grabbed by creating false documents and by impersonating her, executed a sale deed in favour of Rajinikanth. The said Rajinikanth has given a power of attorney to the petitioner in order to alienate the property to some other person and make money. The confession statement of the accused persons reveals the complacent of this petitioner in the crime and by conspiring with the accused persons, he grabbed the land of the deceased Usharani.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had advanced loan to one Rajinikanth to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. When he sought return of loan amount, Rajinikanth executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner authorising him to alienate the property and adjusted the loan amount. After came to know about the fraudulent documentation, the power of attorney executed in his favour was cancelled and the petitioner submits that he has no role in the alleged crime and he has in fact lost his money to Rajinikanth.
2/4
Crl.O.P.No.11025 of 2024
3. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the respondent police submits that the statements recorded during the course of investigation and the confession statement of the petitioner herein would clearly show that the impersonation, falsification of record and transfer of property in the name of Rajinikanth was done in connivance and due knowledge of this petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from the crime just for the reason he has cancelled the power of attorney in his favour.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that out 7 accused, 4 are absconding and the case has been split up against the 3 accused and taken on file in C.C.No.7141 of 2023, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court- CCB & CBCID, Egmore, Chennai.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below shall complete the trial without adjourning the matter unnecessarily and if any petition is filed for dispense with the appearance of the petitioner, same may be considered in accordance with law.
3/4
Crl.O.P.No.11025 of 2024
rpl
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
6. This Court finds that there is enough material to proceed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 109 & 120 (B) IPC. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition to quash stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
25.07.2024
rpl To
1. The CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch III, Team 23 A, Land Grabbing Investigation Wing-II, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.11025 of 2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for land grabbing by impersonation and forged documents should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh
The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch III, Team 23 A, Land Grabbing Investigation Wing-II, Vepery, Chennai-600 007
Makesh
G.Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
