Allowed

G.Subramani v. State Repby

Madras HC8 Jan 2024CRL OP/4641/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this property dispute, the Court quashed criminal proceedings for alleged forgery initiated by a defacto complainant. Finding the dispute to be civil in nature due to conflicting titles and pending civil suits, the Court held the criminal action was liable to be quashed as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed; the proceedings pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.51 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani are quashed.

G.Subramani Vs State Repby — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.2408 of 2022

¶9

G.Subramani

¶10

K.Balaji

¶11

G.Manokaran

¶12

Sundaramoorthy

¶13

Murali

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Tiruvallur Dt.

¶17

Munusamy

¶18

.. Respondents

¶19

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No. 51 of 2020 in Crime No.2 of 2014 on the file of Judicial

¶20

1/7

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶23

Magistrate Court at Tiruttani as it is exfacie illegal, abuse of process, miscarriage of justice, besides being liable to quash on the ground of purely civil dispute between the defacto complainant and the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners and abuse of process of law.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.D.S.Ramesh

¶25

For Respondents : Mr. S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

¶26

Mr.P.Venkatesan for R2

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No. 51 of 2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani.

¶29

Heard both sides.

¶30

2/7

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶33

The 1^st petitioner is the vendor. The 2^nd petitioner is the purchaser. The 3^rd and 4^th petitioners are witnesses in the sale deed executed by 1^st petitioner. The 5^th petitioner is relative of 2^nd petitioner. The case of 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant is that 1^st petitioner's mother Chinnammal purchased the property through a sale deed dated 15.04.1953 in Survey No.157/4 Part with a total extent of 75 cents. Thereafter, she died leaving behind her only son Subramani. As a sole legal heir, after the death of his mother, the 1^st petitioner enjoyed the said property as an absolute owner. Subsequently, the land in Survey No.157/4 was sub-divided into Survey Nos. 157/4 and 157/5 and he has obtained patta vide Patta No.206 and also obtained chitta, adangal in his name and the same was reflected in 'A' register as the property in Survey No.157/5 belong to the 1^st petitioner. After verifying all those documents, the 2^nd petitioner purchased an extent of 42 cents and thereafter, he enjoyed the property. But, now the defacto complainant claimed himself as owner of the property from the year of 1969 stating that he is owner of the property in Survey No.157/5. In fact, he is owner of the property in

¶34

3/7

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶37

Survey No.157/4. But, based upon exchange deed, he claimed right. Even assuming that it is true, the purchase made by the 1^st petitioner's mother was much earlier in the year of 1953. Suppressing several material facts, the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the 1^st respondent police stating that by manipulation, the document was created by the 1^st petitioner and his vendor, thereby all were charged for an offence under Sec.420, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C. r/w 120 I.P.C. Accordingly, the final report was filed in C.C.No. 51 of 2015. In the meanwhile, the suit for declaration was filed by the 1^st petitioner in O.S.No. 109 of 2013, in which the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant and subsequent purchasers are parties and the same is still pending before the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani. Moreover, before that, a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.6 of 2014 was filed by the 2^nd petitioner and the same was decreed. Against which, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 21 of 2022 and the same is pending. Another suit filed by the defacto complainant in O.S.No. 159 of 2015 was decreed exparte and now it is restored.

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶41

All the aforesaid facts would clearly reveal that to confirm the title belong to the 1^st petitioner, he filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.109 of 2013 and the same is still pending. If at all, any grievance over his title, the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant has to work out his remedy before the civil court. Furthermore, on perusal of records as well as the sale deed relied on by the 1^st petitioner, it reveals that in the year of 1953, mother of 1^st petitioner purchased the property in Survey No.157/4 Part through a registered document and subsequently, sub-division was taken place. However, on perusal of 'A' register, it reveals that as on date, the property in Survey No.157/4 was allotted to one Munusamy and the property in Survey No.157/5 was allotted to 1^st petitioner. So, if at all, any irregularity is there in the sub-division, the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant is directed to work out his remedy in the civil court and not through criminal proceedings. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners as such is vexatious one and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.51 of 2020 pending

¶42

5/7

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶45

on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani is quashed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶46

08.01.2024

¶47

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp

¶48

¶49

Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Tiruvallur Dt.

¶50

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶51

6/7

¶52

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

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶54

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶55

rpp

¶56

Crl.O.P.No.4641 of 2022

¶57

08.01.2024

¶58

7/7

¶59

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

G.Subramani v. State Repby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Subramani v. State Repby

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

O.v.Krishnan Vs State Rep by Its , Chengalpattu

Manirathinam Vs State by

Rajasekaran Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Sethupathi Vs Inspector of Police

Ganesh Vs the State Rep by Its

Indhia Fertilizers Vs the State Rep by Its