V.Vijayakumar Vs Rajani. K — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

V.Vijayakumar Vs Rajani. K — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision allowed: the order of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Alandur, dated 13.06.2022, in Crl.M.P.No.1108 of 2022 is set aside, and the complaint dated 21.04.2022 is forwarded to the Inspector of Police, S-1 St.Thomas Mount Police Station with a direction to register a case, investigate and file a final report in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint dated 21.04.2022 alleging cheating by forged sale-deed documents discloses a cognizable offence warranting referral to the police for registration and investigation, notwithstanding the Magistrate's view that the matter is civil in nature because the purchaser failed to verify the documents at the inception of the transaction.

Court's answer

On a perusal of the complaint and documents, the proposed accused represented themselves as owners of the property by a registered sale deed dated 26.06.2012, produced a forged and concocted photocopy of the sale deed, and Document No.2811/2012 is not a sale deed but a receipt deed executed by third parties; therefore the proposed accused, by producing forged documents, cheated the complainant and the complaint makes out a serious cognizable offence.

Ratio / Principle

The order of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Alandur, dated 13.06.2022, in Crl.M.P.No.1108 of 2022 is unsustainable and is set aside; the complaint dated 21.04.2022 is forwarded to the Inspector of Police, S-1 St.Thomas Mount Police Station with a direction to register a case, investigate into the same and file a final report in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Ss.397 & 401 Cr.P.C.) — Refusal to refer complaint for registration/investigation — Judicial Magistrate – I, Alandur had rejected the petitioner's prayer to refer his complaint dated 21.04.2022 to the Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount Police Station, opining that the purchaser failed to verify documents at inception, the complaint was belated and the matter was civil in nature. Allowing the revision, the High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) held that the proposed accused represented themselves as owners under a registered sale deed dated 26.06.2012, produced a forged and concocted photocopy thereof, and that Document No.2811/2012 was in fact a receipt deed executed by third parties; having obtained an advance of Rs.1,35,00,000 out of a total consideration of Rs.2,05,00,000 by such representation, they cheated the complainant, so the complaint made out a serious cognizable offence. The impugned order was set aside and the complaint forwarded to the Inspector of Police, S-1 St.Thomas Mount Police Station with a direction to register a case, investigate and file a final report in accordance with law.

Crl.R.C.No.879 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.07.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.R.C.No.879 of 2022

V.Vijayakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Rajani 2.Sreejith K.K. 3.Shruthi K.K. ... Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.1108 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Alandur and set aside the order dated 13.06.2022 and consequently, direct the Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount Police Station to register the crime against the accused as per complaint dated 21.04.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sudhagar For Respondents : No appearance

O R D E R

This revision is filed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate – I,

Alandur, dated 13.06.2022, in Crl.M.P.No.1108 of 202, in and by which,

the prayer of the petitioner to refer the complaint, dated 21.04.2022, to the

Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount Police Station for investigation is rejected.

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

1/4

Crl.R.C.No.879 of 2022

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate has opined that since the petitioner, as a purchaser, failed to verify the documents at the inception of the transaction itself, belated complaint cannot be entertained and the matter is of civil in nature.

3.However, on a perusal of the complaint and the documents produced by the petitioner, it is clear that the proposed accused represented to be the owner of the property, got an advance amount of Rs.1,35,00,000/of the total sale consideration of Rs.2,05,00,000/- by representing that they

are the owners of the property by a a registered sale deed, dated 26.06.2012 and have also produced a forged and concocted photocopy of the sale deed to the petitioner. However, on subsequent verification, the said Registration number i.e., Document No.2811/2012 is not at all a sale deed, but is a receipt deed executed by third parties and thus, it is clear that the proposed accused by producing forged documents have cheated the complainant. Therefore, I am of the view that the complaint makes out a serious cognizable offence.

4.In that view of the matter, the order of the Judicial Magistrate – I,

Alandur, is unsustainable and this criminal revision is allowed on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2/4

Crl.R.C.No.879 of 2022

following terms:

(i) The order of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Alandur, dated

13.06.2022, in Crl.M.P.No.1108 of 202, is set aside.

(ii) The complaint dated 21.04.2022 is forwarded to the Inspector of

Police, S-1 St.Thomas Mount Police Station with a direction to register a case and investigate into the same and file a final report in accordance with law.

08.07.2022

sli Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate – I, Alandur

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3.The Inspector of Police, S-1 St.Thomas Mount Police Station, Railway Station Road, Southern Railway, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

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

3/4

Crl.R.C.No.879 of 2022

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

sli

Crl.R.C.No.879 of 2022

08.07.2022

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

4/4