Madras High Court
G.R.Vinayagamoorthy vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 March, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.4112 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.03.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.4112 of 2021
G.R.Vinayagamoorthy
...Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector of Police,
(Crime)
V3, JJ Nagar Police Station,
Chennai-40.
Crime No1296 of 2020
...Respondent
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to issue the direction to the respondent to proceed the
Forensic Test of the forged WILL within stipulated time fixed by this Court
in Cr.No.1296 of 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Baskaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent police to
send the alleged forged Will for forensic examination.
2 Heard Mr.L.Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.4112 of 2021
Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. According to the petitioner, the accused persons had fabricated and
forged a Will as if it was executed by the father of the petitioner. A
complaint was given before the respondent police and the First Information
Report has been registered in Crime No.1296 of 2020 on 14.12.2020 for the
offences under Section 467,468 and 474 of IPC. It is also brought to the
notice of this Court that in the course of investigation, when the respondent
police took steps to seize the Will in question, they came to know that the
accused persons have filed a petition before this Court seeking for probate
based on the forged Will. Therefore, the respondent police was not able to
seize the Will in question.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petition filed by the
accused persons is in SR. stage in OP.SR.No.85262 of 2021. The
apprehension raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that if the
bundle is returned back to the accused persons, it is possible that they may
destroy the document. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.4112 of 2021
has requested this Court to give a direction to the Registry not to return the
bundle. It was submitted that either this petition can be numbered and
brought before the Court and thereafter, the Court can direct for sending the
Will for an expert opinion or this Court can direct the Registry to hand over
the original Will in order to enable the respondent police to get the expert
opinion.
5. Where an offence of forgery takes place even before the document
is relied upon before the Court, there is no bar for the police to proceed
further with the investigation. Useful reference can be made to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh and another Vs
State of Bihar and another reported in 1998 (2) SCC 493. It will also be
beneficial to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in
2010 (2) SCC Crl. 660.
6. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the Registry not to
return the bundle filed in OP.SR.No.85262 of 2020. The Registry is directed
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.4112 of 2021
to prepare a certified copy of the Will that has been filed before this Court
and hand over the original Will to the Investigating Officer in order to enable
the Investigating Officer to get an expert opinion. The Registry can proceed
to number the petition with the certified copy of the Will. The respondent
Police immediately after obtaining the expert opinion, shall file the copy of
the opinion before the Registry and the same shall be made part of the case
bundle. Ultimately, the further process in this case will depend upon the
expert opinion that is given on the alleged forged Will. This will equally
apply both for the criminal case as well as the petition filed before this Court
seeking for probate.
7. This Court is forced to adopt this rather novel method in order to
ensure that the accused persons in order to escape from the criminal
prosecution should not find the Court to be a safe haven to file a document
in question and thereby, prevent the Investigating Officer from proceeding
further with the case. That will tantamount to abuse of process of Court and
may lead to a situation where the accused persons will escape from the
clutches of law.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.4112 of 2021
8. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
03.03.2021
rli
Index:yes/No
Internet:yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
Note- Issue order copy on 08.03.2021
To
1. The Inspector of Police (Crime)
V3, JJ Nagar Police Station,
Chennai-40.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.4112 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.,
rli
Crl.O.P.No.4112 of 2021
03.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
