Madras High Court
Antony Jabestin vs The State Rep. By on 22 October, 2021
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7808 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7808 of 2021
and Crl.MP(MD)No.3985 of 2021
Antony Jabestin : Petitioner/Accused No.5
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli City.
(Crime No.4 of 2021) : 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.V.Venkatasalam : 2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining
to the case in Crime No.4 of 2021 pending on the file of the
Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City and quash
the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking to quash the the case in Crime
No.4 of 2021 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, City
Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7808 of 2021
2.The essential part of the case of the prosecution is as
follows:-
On 26.06.1973, vide a registered sale deed in DOC. No. 1348
of 1973, one K.S.Sheik Mathar is said to have purchased a property
measuring to the extent of 13 ¾ cents in Chidambara Nagar Colony
in Survey No.823, Chathiram Pudhukulam Village, Tirunelveli
District. The rough sketch in respect of the said property describes
the said portion as Plot No.A2. Subsequently by dividing the said
property into two as 7 ½ cents and 6 cents, the said K.S.Sheik
Mathar has sold the same through two sale deed Vide DOC.No.
183/1989 and 184/1989 dated 07.09.1988 in which the second
respondent was the purchaser of 7 ¾ cents and after the
purchases, they have also obtained a joint patta vide patta No.1973
and as such they are said to be in possession of the said property
right from the period of purchase. When that being the status with
regard to the ownership of the said two divisional property in Plot
No.A2, the accused NO.1 i.e the very same K.S.Sheik Mathar with a
view to cheat the above stated purchaser and to grab the said
already sold property has appointed the accused No.2 by name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7808 of 2021
S.Mohamed Abusali as his power agent. The said power of attorney
has been registered by the accused No.1 as if he was maintaining
the status of owner and as such he has made the said document
registered on 16.06.2008. Thereupon, the said power agent on
17.09.2008, on the strength of the power deed, has sold the said
property to one K. Muthukrishnan (A3) through DOC. No.1321 of
2008.
3.The first ground on which the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner would submit that with regard to preparation of
committing crime through drafting a general power of attorney
deed is concerned, it took place on 16th June 2008 and thereupon
two transactions have been taken place in respect of the very same
property. After 13 years only, the petitioner has purchased the
property under the impression that the subject matter does not
attach with any encumbrance. On seeing the period of delay from
the date of general power of attorney deed and the date of
purchases, it would be clear that the petitioner is a bonafide
purchaser.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7808 of 2021
4. Another ground is that the petitioner is in possession of the
said property and instead of filing a civil suit, the 2nd respondent
has lodged a criminal complaint with the intention to grab the
property with the help of law enforcing machinery. As far as the
offences under Sections 418 and 420 are concerned, no ingredients
mentioned in those provisions are attracted against the petitioner.
In respect of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468
and 471 IPC are concerned, the subsequent registration of sale
deed by the accused No.4 in favour of the petitioner cannot be
termed as forged document and as such the petitioner cannot be
held responsible for the said penal provisions. That apart, the
original sale deed in respect of the said property was not entrusted
to the second respondent by the first accused and the said sale
deed has also been categorized as a pending document.
5.From the narration of facts, it is clear on record that to
show that this petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for valid
consideration, without notice for the above said issue. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Md.Ibrahim and others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7808 of 2021
Vs. State of Bihar and others (2009)8 SCC 751, which was followed
in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R.Jawaharaj and others in
Manu/SC/0542/2018, dated 11.05.2018. Based upon this judgment,
number of cases have been disposed of by this court. But at no
stretch of imagination, it can be construed that the petitioner was
actively involved in the forgery, which is alleged to have happened
in 1998. This petitioner was not at all in the picture during the
relevant time. This petitioner, as mentioned above only in 2020
that is much after the period of the alleged forgery of the
document, being the bona fide purchaser for the value cannot be
fastened to the criminal liability.
6.For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the
considered view that this is a fittest case to quash the impugned
proceedings.
7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and
the First Information Report in Crime No. 4 of 2021 pending on the
file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City, is
quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Investigation may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7808 of 2021
go on in respect of other accused persons. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitio is closed.
22.10.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
CM
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7808 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J
CM
To,
1.The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli City.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7808 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3985 of 2021
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
