Allowed¶67

Nirmala v. the State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police

Criminal Original Petition allowed; FIR quashed – Property dispute

Madras HC13 Oct 2025CRL OP/8453/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J., 13-10-2025) allowed CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025 and quashed FIR Crime No.10 of 2024 (Inspector of Police, DCB-II, Chengalpattu) under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(part ii) IPC against petitioners Nirmala and Karunakaran, holding the matter to be a civil property dispute with second respondent K. Balakrishnan; civil suit O.S.No.178 of 2019 pending; Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 followed on forgery/false documents.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.10 of 2024 quashed; Criminal Original Petition allowed; connected miscellaneous petition (CRL MP No.5549 of 2025) closed. ¶67

Nirmala Vs the State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR in Crime No.10 of 2024 quashed; Criminal Original Petition allowed; connected miscellaneous petition (CRL MP No.5549 of 2025) closed.

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2024 registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(part ii) IPC, arising out of a property dispute, is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

In light of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, and considering that the suit filed by the second respondent/defacto complainant as early as 2019 is still pending before the Civil Court, for the same grounds the criminal prosecution cannot be maintained.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

The entire facts clearly indicate that there is a civil dispute between the parties; merely because the original owner executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter/first petitioner, the same will not amount to mutation and creation of false records, and to attract the offence of forgery, creation of false records has to be established.

¶48

Key takeaways

Even if the entire F.I.R as such is taken as proof, the same will not constitute an offence; the parties are at liberty to agitate their rights before the civil Court.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition allowed; FIR quashed — Property dispute — Defacto complainant claimed to have purchased the property from the Power Agent on 18.07.2007; the original owner (mother of the first petitioner) later executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter — FIR in Crime No.10 of 2024 registered on the second respondent's complaint for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(part ii) IPC — Held: the entire facts indicate a civil dispute between the parties; execution of a settlement deed by the original owner in favour of her daughter does not amount to mutation and creation of false records, and to attract forgery, creation of false records has to be established — Following Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, and considering that the defacto complainant's suit O.S.No.178 of 2019 (District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam) on the same allegations is still pending, the criminal prosecution cannot be maintained; even if the entire FIR is taken as proof, it would not constitute an offence — Parties at liberty to agitate their rights before the civil Court — FIR quashed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13-10-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025 and

¶7

CRL MP NO.5549 OF 2025

¶8

NIRMALA

¶9

KARUNAKARAN

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police, DCB-II, Chengalpattu, Cr.No.10 Of 2024.

2.K. Balakrishnan

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the FIR in Cr.No.10 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.

¶17

1/8

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025

¶20

For Petitioners Mr.R.Ragavendran For R1 Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 Mr.P.Velmurugan ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records

¶22

relating to the FIR in Cr.No.10 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent-

¶23

Police and to quash the same.

¶24

The second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent-

¶25

Police as against the accused/petitioners herein, in Crime No.10 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(part ii) of the IPC.

¶26

The crux of the allegations made in the FIR is that the subject property is

¶27

owned by one Mrs.Annapoorani, the mother of the first petitioner, who had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr.Venkatesan, who is the

¶28

brother of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is said to have purchased the property from the Power Agent on 18.07.2007. According to

¶29

him, he is in possession of the property. When the matter stood thus,

¶30

Mrs.Annapoorani, the original owner executed a settlement deed in favour of

¶31

2/8

¶32

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

¶33

CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025

¶34

her daughter. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they have not committed

¶35

the offence.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/ defacto complainant, the first respondent-Police registered a case against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(part ii) of IPC in Crime No.10 of 2024. The said F.I.R has been filed on 28.08.2024 after a civil suit has been filed by the defacto complainant in O.S.No.178 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam on the same set of allegations. In the said suit, the first petitioner's mother has also raised a counter claim seeking to set aside the document executed in favour of the defacto complainant. Hence, only to avoid civil litigation, the F.I.R came to be registered. Further, from the entire allegation, even taken as such, no offence has been made out. According to the petitioners, Power of Attorney has been given to the defacto complainant's brother for developing the property, whereas he entered into sale agreements with the purchasers and no such sale consideration has been paid to

¶37

the petitioners and the property is in possession of the petitioners.

¶38

3/8

¶39

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

¶40

CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025

¶41

The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that though it is only a civil dispute between the Power agent and the original owner, the

¶42

de facto complainant being a bonafide purchaser, lodged a complaint for taking action against the petitioners. Therefore, according to him, offences are made out.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Police and perused the materials available on

¶44

record..

¶45

The very complaint filed by the de facto complainant is not disputed.

¶46

The entire allegations contained in the plaint in O.S.No.178 of 2019 and the allegation made in the F.I.R are similar in nature, whereas the petitioners took a

¶47

stand that the Power of Attorney was given specifically for developing the property which has been misused.

¶48

The entire facts clearly indicate that there is a civil dispute between the parties. Merely because the original owner is said to have executed a settlement

¶49

deed in favour of her daughter/first petitioner herein, this Court is of the view

¶50

that the same will not amount to mutation and creation of false records. To

¶51

4/8

¶52

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

¶53

CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025

¶54

attract the offence of forgery, creation of false records has to be established in

¶55

this regard.

¶56

For better appreciation, this Court deems it fit to refer to the judgment

¶57

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar ,

¶58

reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein, it is held as under:

¶59

“There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.

¶60

When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is

¶61

5/8

¶62

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

¶63

CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025

¶64

not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.”

¶65

Emphasis supplied

¶66

In the light of the above judgement, and considering the nature of the

¶67

suit filed by the second respondent/defacto complainant, as early as in the year 2019 itself, the matter is still pending before the Civil Court, this Court is of the view that for the same grounds, the criminal prosecution cannot be maintained. Even if the entire F.I.R as such is taken as proof, the same will not constitute an offence. The parties are at liberty to agitate their rights before the civil Court. Thus, the FIR stands quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is Allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶68

13-10-2025

¶69

mfa

¶70

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶71

6/8

¶72

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

¶73

CRL OP No. 8453 of 2025