Madras High Court
Loganathan vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 January, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 20.01.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED :17.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)No.8852 of 2017
Loganathan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sivanthipatti Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.83 of 2016) ... 1st Respondent/Respondent
2.Selinkalaiselvi ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.83 of 2016 on the file of the
first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganesan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been to quash the FIR in Crime
No.83 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.83 of 2016 on the
file of Sivanthipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District. The allegations
levelled against the petitioner are the offences punishable under Sections
465, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC. The complainant is the second
respondent herein, who is the Personal Assistant, attached to the Revenue
Divisional Office, Tirunelveli District.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.
4.The contents of the First Information Report is that the petitioner
filed writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5310 of 2016 before this Court for
transfer of Patta belonging to one Varadha Desigasari, comprised in S.No.
229/1, in Parpakulam village, Palayankottai Taluk. In that writ petition, the
Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer were added as
parties. So, along with the writ petition, he filed a document No.2, as if, the
proceedings were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
in his proceedings in Ne.Mu.Aa3/7083/2014, dated 31/08/2015,
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
W.P.(MD).No.5310 of 2016 was ordered to consider the representation
of the petitioner for transfer of patta. On that basis, the petitioner again
presented a representation on 11.01.2016, to the Revenue Divisional
Officer. Perusal of the document annexed above mentioned, shows that the
proceedings was not issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. So, it is seen
that the Official document has been forged by the petitioner and field into
the Court.
5.Actually, the proceedings is related to S.No.229/1. By which, the
right of the petitioner to claim patta was rejected, on the ground that it is a
pond. The petitioner appears to have forged the document and filed the
same before the Court, for getting unlawful gain.
6.On the basis of the complaint, case in Crime No.83 of 2016 f for the
offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC,
was registered. It appears that the investigation is pending.
7.Now, according to the petitioner, the allegations have been made
against the petitioner that he forged the official document in
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
Ne.Mu.Aa3/7083/2014, dated 31/08/2015, and filed the same into the
Court. As per Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of Cr.PC, only the Court, before which
the document is filed, is competent to make a complaint. Moreover, it is also
the contention that before making any such complaint, the enquiry provided
under Section 340 Cr.PC, must be undertaken. The Second respondent is
not a competent authority to file a complaint before the police and on that
ground, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed.
8.The short point, which arises for consideration is whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case, registering of the First Information
Report by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sivanthipatti Police Station is legal.
It is very unfortunate, that serious allegations are levelled against the
petitioner with regard to forging of official document and filing the same
into this Court for the purpose of getting a favourable order.
9.The reading of the complaint shows that along with the forged
document for getting favourable order, again he approached the authorities
for considering his request. It is seen that only at that time, the veracity of
the document came to light. Since the investigation is pending, this Court is
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
not making any observation with regard to the alleged forgery of the
document. It is seen that the serious allegation is levelled against the
petitioner, not only with regard to the forging of official records, but, also
with regard to the administration of justice.
10.Now, coming to the legal issue, according to the petitioner, by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Amarsang Nathaji Vs
Hardik Harshadbhai patel and Others 2017 (1) MWN (Cr.) 230 (SC),
only the Court before, which the document has been used, is competent to
make a complaint after understanding the enquiry under Section 340 Cr.PC.
In that case, the complaint was filed without complying the procedure
provided under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, before making the complaint.
11.There can be no quarrel with regard to the basic principles that has
been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment.
But, the difference lies, the manner as well as the place, where the alleged
forgery took place. If the forgery or falsification of document takes place
out side of the Court, before its presentation to the Court, or let in evidence
the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) is not attracted. But, only when the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
forgery has been committed after presentation into the Court, the bar under
Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C will come into the operation and this position
has been clearly held by the constitution Bench by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in R.C.Lahoti and Others Vs Meenakshi Marwah and
Another 2005 (2) Supreme 549. So, the allegations made in the complaint
clearly shows that the petitioner alleged to have forged the official
document and presented the same into the Court for getting favorable order.
12.So, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has to
fail on this legal issue. So, when there is no bar under Section 195 (1) (b)
(ii) of Cr.P.C, the procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C also does
not arise. So, the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed
accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
17.02..2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
dss
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sivanthipatti Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13052 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)No.8852 of 2017
17.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
