Dismissed

Bharani Raj v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Feb 2024CRL OP(MD)/8143/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bench dismissed three Criminal Original Petitions filed jointly to quash criminal proceedings for forgery and cheating in a government land dispute. The court held that the defense of lack of knowledge is a matter for trial, not quashing, and proceedings are liable to be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions were dismissed and connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

Bharani Raj Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved On : 24.11.2023 Pronounced On : 27.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.8143, 8281 of 2021 and 13926 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.6386 of 2020 & 4205, 4206, 4246 and 4247 of 2021

¶7

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8143 of 2021:

¶8

Bharani Raj ... Petitioner/Accused No.5 Vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur. ... Respondent/Complainant 2. The Tahsildar, Kulithalai, Karur District. ... Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.30/2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai and quash the Charges under sections 120-B, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 474 of Indian Penal Code so far as the Petitioner herein Accused No.5.

¶11

1/9

¶12

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

¶13

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶14

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8281 of 2021:

¶15

Mallika ... Petitioner/Accused No.6 Vs.

¶16

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur. ... Respondent No.1/Complainant 2. The Tahsildar, Kulithalai, Karur District. ... Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant

¶17

¶18

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13926 of 2020:

¶19

Lalitha ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs.

¶20

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur. ... Respondent/Complainant 2. The Tahsildar, Kulithalai, Karur District. ... Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant

¶21

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

¶22

2/9

¶23

PRAYER:

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶25

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jayavel (in all Cases) For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) (in all Cases)

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.30 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai.

¶29

2.The second respondent gave a complaint to the first respondent on 07.06.2015 with the false allegation of forgery in respect of the Government land, A1 and A2 demanded patta by submitting the application to the jurisdiction Deputy Thasildhar. The Deputy Thasildhar, rejected the claim on the ground that the land is Government land. In spite of that, the Petitioner/Accused

¶30

3/9

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶33

No.6 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8281 of 2021 managed to get chitta in the name of the A1 and A2 and transfer was effected. In the said document, the petitioners/A4 to A6 are the attesting witnesses. Hence, all conspired together to usurp the Government property by forging the government record and registered the document in their name. On the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, the first respondent Police registered the case in Crime No.17 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the final report was filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.30 of 2020, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai. Hence, the present petition has been filed to quash the proceedings.

¶34

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/Accused No.4 to 6 submitted that they are only attestors of the documents and they have no knowledge about the character of the land. Hence, he seeks for quashment of the proceedings.

¶35

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are the close relative of the Accused No.1 to 3 and they are from the same villagers. He further submitted that they have knowledge about the land that it

¶36

4/9

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶39

belongs to the Government. In the said circumstances, the investigating agency conducted the investigation and filed the final report for the alleged offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC. It is not necessary at this stage to prove the knowledge. The factum of the knowledge is state of mind of the accused and it is a matter for trial. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of quash the proceeding.

¶40

5.This court considered the submission made on either side and also

¶41

perused the record and also final report. The final report is made with the following allegation:

¶42

Brief Facts of the Case tHffpYs; s bghUz; ik gw; wpa;

¶43

RUffk; ; :

¶44

fU:h; khtl;lk;. Fspj;jiy tl;lk;. itifey;Y}h; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/246-1CZ tp!;jPuzk; 0/67/5 epykhdJ gl;lh vz; 182 d; go jpUr;rp $py;yh nghh;Lf;F chpaJ/ ,e;j ,lj;ijg; bghWj;J 1. 2 tJ vjphpfs; muir Vkhw;wp j';fsJ bgaiu gl;lhtpy; nrh;f;f jhf;fy; bra;j kDtpid 7 tJ vjphp Fkhughz;oad; tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L muR Mtz';fspy; jpUr;rp $py;yh nghh;L vd;W ,Ue;Jk;. muRf;F chpikahd epyj;jpd; gl;lhtpy; 1. 2 tJ vjphpfspd; bgah;fis nrh;f;f ghpe;Jiu bra;jij kz;ly Jiz tl;lhl;rpah; kDtpid js;Sgo bra;j gpd;dUk; 1. 2.

¶45

5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶47

3 tJ vjphpfs; 6 tJ vjphpapd; cjtpa[ld; Fspj;jiy jhYfh mYtyfj;jpypUe;J 245-1CZ jpUr;rp $py;yh nghh;L epyj;jpw;Fhpa fzpzp rpl;lhtpid bgw;W mjpy; thpir vz;/2 uhkrhkp. thpir vz;/3 ehuhazrhkp Mfpnahh;fspd; bgah;fisa[k; Tl;lhf nrh;j;J nghypahf Mtzk; jahh; bra;J mij itj;J 1. 2 tJ vjphpfs; 3tJ vjphpf;F Fspj;jiy rhh;gjpt[ mYtyfj;jpy; itj;J Mtz vz;/1760-2014 d; go 16/07/2014 k; njjp fpiuak; bfhLj;Js;shh;fs;/ nkw;go ,lkhdJ muRf;F brhe;jkhdJ vd bjhpe;Jk; nkw;go Mtzj;jpy; 4. 5. 6 tJ vjphpfs; rhl;rp ifbaGj;J nghl;Ls;shh;fs;/ nkw;go vjphpfs; midtUk; nrh;e;J Tl;L rjp bra;J muR Mtzj;jpy; nghypahf bgah; nrh;j;J bgha;ahd Mtzj;ij Vw;gLj;jp mjid cz;ik nghy gad;gLj;jp Mjhak; mile;J muir Vkhw;wp ek;gpf;if nkhro bra;J Fw;wk; g[hpe;Js;shh;fs;/ vdnt vjphpfs; rl;lg;gphpt[ 120 (B) . 420. 464. 465. 468. 471. 474 IPC go jz;of;fg;gl ntz;oa Fw;wthspfs; Mfpwhh;fs;/ ,Jnt Fw;wk;/

¶48

6.From the above reading, it is clear that the A4 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13926

¶49

of 2020 is the son of A2, A5 is the wife of A1, A6 is the family friend of the A5. All are from the same village. Hence, the required knowledge about the character of the property is legally presumed. The said land situated adjacent to

¶50

the Government School. In all the revenue records, the land was stated as the

¶51

6/9

¶52

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

¶53

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶54

Government land. In the said circumstances, they forged the chitta and got the registration with active connivance with the other accused. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case A.S.Krishnan and others Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2004 11 SCC 576 , held that the knowledge is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. Hence, whether the petitioner is having knowledge about the land is matter for trial. Further, the defence of the petitioners cannot be looked into under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., jurisdiction. Hence, in all aspects, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶55

7.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶56

27.02.2024

¶57

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vsg

¶58

7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶60

¶61

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai.

¶62

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur.

¶63

The Tahsildar, Kulithalai,Karur District.

¶64

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶65

8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶67

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶68

vsg

¶69

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8143 of 2021

¶70

27.02.2024

¶71

9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Bharani Raj v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharani Raj v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marudhambal @ Banumathi Vs the Special Tahsildar

Bala Sayee Kumar, Vs Madasamy(Died)

C.J.George Ditto Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank

K.Mandiramadathi, Vs K.Murugaraj

Mrs.Kavitha Vs The Inspector of Police

s.k.mariappan Vs s.kennedy