Madras High Court
A.Narayanan ... Revision vs State Rep. By on 13 October, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 07.03.2022
Pronounced on : 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2824 & 2825 of 2022
A.Narayanan ... Revision Petitioner/A2
Vs.
State Rep. By
Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Team XXI Thousand Lights,
Chennai. ... Respondent /complainant
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 13.10.2021 made in CMP
No.3059 of 2021 in C.C.No.189 of 2009, on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakantan
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been directed against the order
dated 13.10.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Poonamallee, in Crl.M.P.No.3059 of 2021 in C.C.No.189 of 2009.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in C.C.No.189 of
2009. The said case has been foisted against the petitioner and four
others, alleging that they committed offence under Sections 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 420 and 120 IPC. After taking cognizance, when the said
case has been posted for trial, the petitioner herein filed a petition under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge him from the charges.
3. Before the trial Court, it is the case of the prosecution that the
defacto complainant's father had purchased a landed property measuring
an extent of 34 cents in Survey No.440/2A1A and 11 cents in Survey
No.440/2J, from one Mr.Parthasarathy Pillai by a deed of Sale Document
No.2693/1963 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar's Office,
Poonamallee. One Mr.Paulraj and his sister Arockiya Madha along with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
their 5 henchmen came to the land and picked up a quarrel with the
defacto complainant and damaged the fencing and removed the name
board erected by the defacto complainant. Later, the defacto complainant
came to know that they are the group fabricating forged documents for
the lands. In this regard, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint in
CCB, Land Grabbing Cell. On receipt of complaint, a case in CCB
Cr.No.425/2008 under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) IPC
was registered and after completing investigation, the investigation
officer has filed a charge sheet against the accused persons and the case
is now under trial.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the defacto complainant has attempted to give the colour of criminal
offence against the petitioner and that too, the matters of which are
essentially and purely in civil nature. All documents relied on by the
prosecution are properly registered before the Sub Registrar's Office,
Ambattur and there is no necessity of forging such documents as alleged
in the charge sheet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the charge sheet is prepared without noticing and taking
into consideration of complainant's parent documents. Parent document
of the complainant revealed that, complainant Gopalan's predecessor did
not purchase 0.11 cents by any registered document. The respondent
police without verifying the boundary marks of previous documents,
believing the document submitted by the complainant registered a case
and filed a final report against this petitioner. Even assuming that the
documents relied on by the petitioner is a forged one, being the reason
that the same was executed by the vendor of the land with the bonafide
belief that the land belongs to him, it cannot be said that with an
intention to defraud the defacto complainant, the petitioner and others
committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.
6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
since a Civil Suit in C.S.No.260 of 2008 is pending before the competent
forum, it would be necessary to discharge the petitioner from the alleged
charges. The trial Court without considering the said aspect dismissed
the petition filed by the petitioner, which is erroneous in law. In support
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied
on the following judgments and prayed to setaside the order impugned
herein.
(i) B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee & Another [CDJ 2007 SC 1120].
(ii) Yogesh Alias Schin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashra [(2008) 10 SCC
394].
(iii) Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another [(2009) 8 SCC
751]
(iv) Devendra and Others v. State of U.P. And Another [(2009) 7 SCC 495]
(v) Sheila Sebastian v. R.Jawaharaj and Another [(2018) 7 SCC 581]
7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing
for the respondent police denied the submissions made by the petitioner's
counsel. He would further submit that the document enclosed along with
the final report i.e. Document No.2692/1963, would disclose the fact that
the defacto complainant is having title for 11 cents. Infact one
T.Parthasarathy Pillai sold the property comprised in SF No.440/2A
measuring of 34 cents and S.F.No.440/2J, measuring of 11 cents, totally
45 cents, in favour of Ramanatha Dheekchadhar, who is the father of the
defacto complainant herein. Later, the accused included the land belongs
to the defacto complainant, entered into sale transaction and executed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
the documents in the name of various persons. It shows that without any
right in respect to the subject property, the petitioner and others sold the
property and thereby, there was a prima facie case, to show that the
petitioner has committed an offence as alleged by the prosecution.
8. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either
side are considered. Vide Document No.2692/1963, the father of the
defacto complainant purchased the property measuring an extent of 45
cents in SF No.440/2A and 440/2J, among which, the petitioner after
including 11 cents, which found in SF No.440/2J, sold some other
properties and created a false document. In such a situation, if the
petitioner sold out 11 cents of property which belongs to the defacto
complainant, the same will prove that he is having a dishonest intention
to deceive the defacto complainant and executed a false document. Even
assuming that he executed the said sale document with bonafide intention
that the said property belongs to him, the same has to be decided only at
the time of trial as to whether the petitioner committed a bonafide
mistake or not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
9. It is true, a civil dispute cannot be converted into a criminal
nature. A dispute regarding the boundaries and the pendency of the civil
cases, does not substantiate a criminal case. However, in the present
case, all the accused layout the property including the plot belongs to the
defacto complainant, without any right over the property. Only based on
such complaint a case has been registered. Therefore, without tracing out
the document, which will prove that the defacto complainant is having
the right in a property, which was sold already by the petitioner, it cannot
be said the dispute having by the petitioner is only a civil nature.
10. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239
Cr.P.C., arises when the Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless. No detailed evaluation of the materials or
meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at
this stage. The exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is
certainly not to be undertaken at this stage and has to be postponed to a
later date. In otherwise, while at the time of framing charge, the
Magistrate is expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case keeping
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
in view the essential ingredients of the offence for which the accused is
sought to be charged.
11. Here it is a case, in the impugned order, the learned Magistrate
clearly held that the Document No.2692/1963 is an important document
and also the same is evident for proving the title having by the defacto
complainant. In otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioner that the said
property has been partitioned during the time of laying out the properties.
Therefore, the said act committed by the petitioner is sufficient for
framing the charge against him. Therefore, whether the accused is
guilty/innocence of the charge the evidence adduced is not be
meticulously seen, the same has to be seen only at the time of trial.
12. It is settled law, where material on record discloses offence,
the accused cannot be discharged. Further, where complaint, the
statement of witness and documents filed along with the charge sheet,
show prima facie material to frame the charge, the accused would not be
discharged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
13. Herein also, in the impugned order, as rightly pointed out by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, that the execution of
the document without any right in respect to subject property will come
under the caption of 'forgery or false' document. Accordingly, I am of
the considered opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate after going
through the entire final report filed by the prosecuting agency came to the
conclusion that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner for
framing the charge and ultimately, dismissed the application. The said
findings arrived at by the trial Court is not a perverse one.
14. Further, though it was alleged that the other accused in this
case have entered into compromise with the defacto complainant, until
the petitioner herein entered into a compromise with the defacto
complainant, this Court cannot conclude that the entire dispute having by
the defacto complainant with the petitioner is settled.
15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The
order dated 12.02.2020 made in CMP No.4545 of 2019 in C.C.No.546 of
2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
confirmed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
11.03.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes / No
ars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Poonamallee.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Team XXI Thousand Lights,
Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
ars
Pre-delivery order in
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2022
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
