Allowed¶38

R.Paneerselvam v. State Rep by

Madras HC18 Sept 2025CRL OP/1986/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; Crime No.12 of 2021; Nagapattinam Police Station; Sections 294(b), 403, 418, 420, 425 and 506(1) IPC; Section 465 IPC; false documents; mutation of revenue records; patta; Trust created 1946; darga; registered documents 1922-1953; partition deed 31.03.2022; sale deed 05.03.1948; partition deed 10.05.1953; Will dated 27.01.2006; sale deed 19.10.2020; purely civil dispute; remedy before civil court; abuse of process; Madras High Court; N. Sathish Kumar; 18.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; First Information Report in Crime No.12 of 2021 quashed as against the petitioners; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; parties at liberty to work out their remedies before the competent civil Court. ¶38

R.Paneerselvam Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report in Crime No.12 of 2021, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 403, 418, 420, 425 and 506(1) of IPC, should be quashed. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

This Court is inclined to quash the First Information Report by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS).

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Mere execution of documents or obtaining of mutation in the revenue records, based on long standing registered deeds, would not amount to creation of false documents or records so as to attract the offence under Section 465 IPC.

¶31

Key takeaways

When a person exercises his individual rights over property derived from registered documents, any act done in respect of such property would not attract any criminal liability; the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature, and the parties are open to seek appropriate relief before the competent civil court.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.), Crl.O.P.No.1986 of 2024, decided 18.09.2025 - Quashing of FIR. The FIR in Crime No.12 of 2021 on the file of Nagapattinam Police Station was registered under Sections 294(b), 403, 418, 420, 425 and 506(1) IPC on the de facto complainant's allegation that property dedicated to a Trust created in 1946 for establishing a darga was claimed by the accused, who attempted to obtain patta, sold the property in 2020 and thereafter obtained patta by illegal means. The petitioners relied on registered documents - partition deed dated 31.03.2022, sale deed dated 05.03.1948, partition deed dated 10.05.1953, a Will dated 27.01.2006 executed by N.A.Ramasamy in favour of the first petitioner, and a sale deed dated 19.10.2020 by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner. Held: mere execution of documents or obtaining of mutation in revenue records based on long standing registered deeds does not amount to creation of false documents or records so as to attract Section 465 IPC; where a person exercises individual rights over property derived from registered documents, acts done in respect of such property do not attract criminal liability; the dispute is purely civil in nature and the parties may seek appropriate relief before the competent civil court. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), the FIR was quashed as against the petitioners and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1986 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1986 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.Nos.1441 of 2024 & 6936 of 2025

¶9

R.Paneerselvam

¶10

S.G.Vivekanandan ... Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The State represented by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Crime No.12 of 2021)

¶13

Azeesur Rahuman ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in connection with Crime No.12 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police and to quash the FIR

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivas, Senior Counsel for Mrs.V.Mythili

¶16

For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.Abdul Mubeen

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.1986 of 2024

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶22

First Information Report in Crime No.12 of 2021, pending on the file of the first respondent Police, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 403, 418, 420, 425 and 506(1) of IPC.

¶23

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

The allegations in the First Information Report indicate that the

¶25

de facto complainant has alleged that the disputed property was originally dedicated to Trust, which was created in the year 1946, for charitable purposes to establish darga. It is further alleged that the accused attempted to make claim right over the property and tried to obtain patta, which was objected to by the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the accused sold the property in the year 2020 and subsequently, obtained patta by illegal means.

¶26

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that absolutely the First Information Report is nothing but an abuse of process of law. According to him, the property in question is the separate ancestral property of the first petitioner's predecessors. To

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.1986 of 2024

¶30

substantiate his contention, the learned counsel produced copies of the registered documents namely, the partition deed dated 31.03.2022, the sale deed dated 05.03.1948 and the partition deed dated 10.05.1953. Further, a Will dated 27.01.2006 was executed in favour of the first petitioner by his father, N.A.Ramasamy and pursuant to which, the first petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the second petitioner vide document dated 19.10.2020. The series of registered documents from 1922 to 1953 clearly indicate that the property had been transferred long ago and enjoyed by the respective parties.

¶31

Though the de facto complainant claims that the Trust was created in the year 1946, the petitioners, based on the above registered documents, have exercised their rights over the property. Such being the position, mere execution of documents or obtaining of mutation in the revenue records, based on long standing registered deeds would not amount to creation of false documents or records so as to attract the offence under Section 465 IPC.

¶32

Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that when a person exercises his individual rights over the property derived from

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.1986 of 2024

¶36

registered documents, any act done in respect of such property would not attract any criminal liability. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature. If at all the parties intend to establish their respective rights, it is always open to them to seek appropriate relief before the competent civil court.

¶37

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the First Information Report by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.(corresponding to section 528 BNSS).

¶38

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The First Information Report in Crime No.12 of 2021, pending on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The parties are at liberty to work out their remedies before the competent civil Court.

¶39

18.09.2025

¶40

ham

¶41

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶42

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45