Madras High Court
A.Chellamuthu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 23 December, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.12.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
A.Chellamuthu ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Spl.Cell,
Kancheepuram District.
2. M.Thirugnanasambamdam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet filed
in C.C.No.130 of 2017 on the files of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Chengalpet, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakumar
For Respondents : R1 – Mr. S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate(Criminal Side)
R2 – No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet filed in
C.C.No.130 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Chengalpet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 420, 423, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegation is that the accused claims to be the
owner of the property. The property originally belong to the defacto
complainant's ancestors. The accused claiming to be the owner of the
property have created a false document and sold the property to A2 and A1
was attesting witness of the above document and A2 has settled the property
in favour of his son on 17.06.2010, wherein A1 also is a attesting witness.
3. It is the only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that A1 is only the attesting witness of the document and absolutely there is
no material to show that either A1, A2 and others have made a false
document. Therefore, submitted that merely a person claiming to be the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
owner of the property and executing documents, such an act never comes
within the definition of Section 465 of I.P.C. to contend that there was
forgery. Therefore, submitted that the entire prosecution was nothing but
motivated and A2 has already died and A1 is a attesting witness of the
document. Therefore, prays to quash the charge sheet.
4. Normally, the Court will not interfere with the final report when
the materials collected by the investigation agency prima facie indicate that
there are materials to proceed against the accused. At the same time, the
entire prosecution materials taken on face value do not constitute any
offence, still forcing the persons to undergo the ordeal of trial can be
prevented while exercising power under the Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. The crux of the charge is that the accused has committed the
offence of forgery in creating the documents. It is relevant to note that
Section 464 of I.P.C. deals with making the false documents and Section
464 of IPC reads as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a
false document or false electronic record---
First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of
a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of
any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a
document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a
part of document, electronic record or digital signature was
made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by
the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he
knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or
affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters
a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital
signature either by himself or by any other person, whether
such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or
Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to
sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record
or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised
upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may
amount to forgery.
Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the
name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the
document was made by a real person, or in the name of a
deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to
forgery.”
6. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused created any
documents. In fact they have sold the property and they claiming to be the
owner of the property. Therefore, when a person executing the property
conveying the property describing it as his, the said act could not constitute
an offence of making a false document as held by the Apex Court in the
judgment in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and
another reported in [2009] 8 SCC 751.
7. Therefore, even the entire materials collected by the prosecution, it
is stated that A1 is only an attesting witness of the document and A2 is
already died which is also not disputed. In such view of the matter, the
prosecution against the petitioner is nothing but futile exercise.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
charge sheet filed in C.C.No.130 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 423, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. is
quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.12.2021
vrc / kbs
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes
Speaking Orders
To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Chengalpattu.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Spl.Cell,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc / kbs
Crl.O.P.No.26024 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15001 & 15002 of 2017
23.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
