Petitioner challenged an order in a criminal complaint closing the inquiry as a civil dispute regarding a forged will. The High Court held the dispute is purely civil and pending in appropriate courts, finding no purpose in entertaining the writ petition against the police.
Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition closed and dismissed.
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.
W.P.No.6175 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:09.07.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
W.P.No.6175 of 2024 and
W.M.P.No.6836 of 2024
Karthick Raja
.. Petitioner
/versus/
1.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District.
2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Erode District.
3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Cithode Police Station, Erode District.
5.Sadayappan
6.Palanisamy
7.Murugeson
8.Sakthivel
1/7
W.P.No.6175 of 2024
9.Kathirvel
10.Manivarman
11.Gomathi
12.Shanmugam 13.Mahesh
.. Respondents
Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to order dated 03.02.2024 in Na.Ka.No.55/ADSP/HQ/I/Ed/2023 passed by the respondent No.2 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent No.3 herein to register the FIR based on complaint of the petitioner dated 29.09.2023 addressed to the Director General of Police.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Subash For R1 to R4 :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R5 to R9 :Mr.N.Manokaran ------
ORDER
The petitioner herein has made a complaint to the Director General of Police against some of the police officials alleging that they have taken side in the course of investigation on his complaint of forgery
2/7
W.P.No.6175 of 2024
of Will and they try to influence the attesting witnesses to act in favour of the 5th and 6th respondent who are the beneficiary of the alleged forged Will.
through his counsel is that on 20.06.1985, one Marappan Gounder and his wife Kaliammal had executed a Will in favour of one Mani. Thereafter, he has cancelled the Will and executed another Will in which he has given his four cents of land equally to his four sons. The petitioner herein being aggrieved that the subsequent Will suspects it to be a forged Will since it contains two thumb impressions of executant.
W.P.No.6175 of 2024
the petitioner at length finds that there is no purpose on pursuing the criminal complaint as well as the enquiry about the investigating officer who dealt with the matter, against whom there is an allegation that he visited the attesting witnesses place in the car of the accused. Since the police has not taken any decision on the complaint but had directed the parties to work out their remedy before the Civil Court.
the second will was propounded by the accused persons. There is manipulation in the document, the complaint of forgery needs investigation. This Court is of the view that the issue is very much subject matter of the civil suit pending and therefore, whatever suspicious
4/7
W.P.No.6175 of 2024
circumstances canvassed by the petitioner herein can be placed before the Civil court and establish his case. It is now stated that the petitioner has filed his written statement and matter is pending for framing of issues.
entertaining this writ petition which is about a collateral proceedings accusing the police, who have nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioner and accused persons regarding piece of land left by the ancestral. Hence, this petition is closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.07.2024
Index:yes/no Neutral Citation:yes/no ari
To:
5/7
W.P.No.6175 of 2024
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari
W.P.No.6175 of 2024
W.P.No.6175 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.6836 of 2024
09.07.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can entertain a complaint against police inaction regarding a forged will when the matter is already pending as a civil suit.
Whether the directive by the Investigating Officer to parties to work out their remedy in the Civil Court is maintainable.
Whether the alleged bias of the police in a will forgery case involving collaterals warrants intervention under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karthick Raja
Superintendent of Police, Erode District
Additional Superintendent of Police
Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch
Inspector of Police, Cithode Police Station
Sadayappan
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
