Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

P.Murugesan vs The Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 11906 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11906 Mad
Judgement Date : 17 June, 2021

Madras High Court
P.Murugesan vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 June, 2021
                                                          CRL.O.P.No.10518 of 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                DATED : 17.06.2021

                                    CORAM:

                 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                          CRL.O.P.No.10518 of 2021
                                     and
                           Crl.M.P.No.6320 of 2021

1.P.Murugesan
2.P.Suresh                                                  ... Petitioners

                                    Versus

1.The Inspector of Police,
 District Crime Branch,
 Namakkal.

2.K.Palaniappan                                             ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in relation to
Cr.No.37 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the
same.

         For Petitioner     :       Mr.D.Vairamoorthy

         For R1             :       Mr.A.Damodaran,
                                    Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                                      *****


                                     ORDER

CRL.O.P.No.10518 of 2021

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in

st

Crime No.37 of 2012, dated 16.09.2012 pending on the file of the 1

respondent Police.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case

has been registered against the petitioners based on the finding of the

Revision Petition in R.P.No.23 of 2011. The petitioners were removed

from the enjoyment of the property in survey No.248 measuring to the

extent of 8.15 acres by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowment, Namakkal on 18.11.2011 with the aid of the

revenue officials and Police. The property is valued more than two crore.

It is seen that on 22.04.2011, a lease deed was created and it has been

notarized. This lease deed is alleged to be a forged document and based

on which, the case has been proceeded against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that

CRL.O.P.No.10518 of 2021

against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowment, Namakkal in R.P.No.23 of 2011, a statutory

appeal has been filed before the Subordinate Judge, Paramathi in

O.S.No.38 of 2018. After completing the trial, the learned Subordinate

Judge, Paramathi, by judgment, dated 28.03.2019 found that the Assistant

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

Namakkal has got no right to demand any lease amount and the

petitioners' enjoyment on the property is not illegal. The learned counsel

further submitted that Ex.P8 is the lease deed dated 22.04.2011 and no

evidence was produced in the suit to prove the lease deed is a forged one.

The entire case rest on whether the lease deed dated 22.04.2011 has been

forged or otherwise. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the FIR against

the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on

behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the lease deed dated

22.04.2011 is a forged document. Based on which, the FIR was

registered. During investigation the statement of Notary one

Mr.Shanmugam was recorded and also the statement of Stamp Vendor

CRL.O.P.No.10518 of 2021

Jayasingh recorded. Further, the lease deed was subjected to Forensic

Study and proved that it is forged one. He further submitted that on

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi on 16.06.2020 and so far, the charge sheet

is not taken on file.

5.According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the

pith and substance in the civil suit are not same in the criminal case. Hear

the document has been proved as forged one. The petitioners are the

beneficiaries, who were squatting upon the temple properties worth about

several crores.

6.It is seen that since charge sheet has been filed before the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, nothing survives in the above Criminal

Original Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

7.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy is directed to send a

report why the charge sheet filed on 16.06.2020 has not been taken on file

CRL.O.P.No.10518 of 2021

till date and who is the reason and cause for it.

8.Post the matter on 30.06.2021 for reporting compliance.

17.06.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

vv2

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL.O.P.No.10518 of 2021

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

vv2

CRL.O.P.No.10518 of 2021

17.06.2021

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter