Rajamani Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Inspector of Police

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records of the impugned First Information Report registered as against the petitioners herein in FIR No.23 of 2024 dated 13.09.2024,on the file of the first respondent under Sections 120B, 465 r/w 471, 468 and 420 of IPC and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.8277 of 2025

¶22

for M/s.C.P.Prasanth Gopal

¶23

For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.R.Jayaprakash

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.23 of 2024, on the file of

¶26

the first respondent Police for the offence under Sections 120B, 465, 471, 468 and 420 of IPC.

¶27

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as A5 to A10 in Crime No.23 of 2024. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had purchased the subject property in the year 1991 from accused 1 to 4. The crux of the allegation in the complaint is that the de facto complainant claims to be the son of one Karruppuvalayan @ Karuppan, who is said to have died only on 02.02.2017 at the age of 106 years. However, accused 1 to 4 had allegedly obtained a legal heir certificate in the year 1990, as if the said Karruppuvalayan had already died and representing themselves as his

¶29

2/5

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.8277 of 2025

¶32

legal heirs and executed a sale deed in respect of the property in the year

¶33

1991. Based on which, the name of the petitioners, who purchased the property from accused 1 to 4 in 1991, were mutated in the revenue records and they have also been arrayed as accused in the present case.

¶34

According to the second respondent/de facto complainant, the parent document relates only to 1.84 acres, whereas, the petitioners are said to have purchased the entire 3.68 acres. It is further alleged that the father of the de facto complainant had purchased the property on 19.01.1921 and later, he sold 1.84 acres in the year 1928 and subsequently, in the year 1933, the repurchased the same and become the owner of the entire property once again.

¶35

Be that as it may, even if the entire allegations in the complaint

¶36

are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the accusation is directed only against accused 1 to 4, who are alleged to have fabricated the legal heir certificate and executed the sale deed. The petitioners herein/A5 to A10, who are the purchasers of the property and members of the same family, appear to have purchased the property.

¶37

3/5

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.8277 of 2025

¶40

6.

¶41

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered

¶42

opinion that the petitioners, being bona fide purchasers, cannot be made as accused. However, they may be cited as witnesses in the course of investigation or trial.

¶43