CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl. O.P. No.15041 of 2021
and Crl.M.P. No.8203 of 2021
1. D.Venkatesan
2. V.Nagarajan
3. V.Surendran .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch – II,
Chennai CCB.
Crime No.82 of 2021.
2. Karate Karrthi ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the case in
Cr.No.82 of 2021 on the file of the First Respondent police and quash
the same.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr. R.Thamaraiselvan
for Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent-1: Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
2: Mr. Prakash Goklaney
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.82 of 2021 on the file of the First Respondent police.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a complaint given by the second respondent/de facto complainant, a case has been registered in Cr. No.82 of 2021 before the first respondent with regard to the civil dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent; the first respondent police, knowing pretty well about the civil nature of the complaint, had chosen to register a criminal complaint; the first respondent police had attempted to paint criminal colour for a civil case, which is forbidden in law and hence, the Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021 proceedings in Cr. No.82 of 2021, should be quashed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
4. A perusal of the records shows that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioners on the one hand and the de facto complainant on the other hand. The mother of the de facto complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2014 before the District Munsif, Poonamallee for mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction. The suit was also dismissed on 21.01.2019. In turn, the first petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 2015 before the Sub-Judge, Poonamallee against the mother of the de facto complainant and the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board claiming the relief of partition, delivery of possession and permanent injunction and the said suit in O.S.No.39 of 2015 came to be decreed on 06.1.2016. The mother of the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant have also filed yet another suit in O.S.No.194 of 2020 before the District Munsif Court, Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021 Poonamallee seeking (i) the relief of permanent injunction, (ii) to declare the decree and judgment in O.S.No.39 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee as null and void; (iii) to declare the settlement deed registered as Doc.No.3918 of 2018 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Virugambakkam, executed between petitioners 1 and 3 herein as null and void; and (iv) for mandatory injunction.
5. On perusal of the complaint of the de facto complainant, it is seen that the allegations are predominantly civil in nature. The dispute is with regard to a pathway. The rightful course open to the parties is to contest the civil case. If certain conveyances are executed by persons and if they do not have any validity or entitlement, the same can also challenged only before the Civil Court. Unless the Civil Court decides about the veracity or otherwise of the allegations of the respective parties and renders a finding, the contents in the complaint of the de facto complainant cannot be held to be true. Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
6. The allegation of the second respondent in his complaint is that the petitioners had executed deeds with a view to defeat his interest.
7. There is no specific allegation in the complaint of the de facto complainant that the petitioners had forged anyone's signature. The allegation was to the effect that the de facto complainant and his mother were unaware of the execution of certain conveyances made by the petitioners. The above allegation exactly makes out a civil case and not a criminal case including forgery.
8. Even though there is no bar to register a criminal case in view of the pending civil disputes between the parties, the said bar should be exercised by the first respondent police cautiously. In the case on hand, the allegations do not even refer to any criminal action, but they refer about certain transactions, for which, the second respondent's mother has objections. Having approached the Civil Court and filed a civil suit Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021 against the petitioners in order to decide the dispute between themselves, the second respondent has filed the criminal complaint. Hence, the first respondent police ought to have made a preliminary enquiry in view of the civil suits pending between the petitioners and the second respondent. In that case the first respondent could have closed the case as it is civil in nature. Instead, the first respondent police has registered a criminal case without any basis.
9. Since a criminal colour has been given for a civil dispute, which arose between the parties, the case in Cr. No.82 of 2021 pending against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
In result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in Cr. No.82 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Page No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021 Internet: Yes/No RS/bkn To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch – II, Chennai CCB.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021 R.N.MANJULA, J., RS/bkn CRL. O.P. No.15041 of 2021 05.09.2022 Page No.8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis