Madras High Court
Mr.J.Ram Kumar vs State Represented By on 7 September, 2021
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 07.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.O.P.No.16859 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
Mr.J.Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
vs.
1. State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Chennai – 600 007.
(Crime No.188/2007)
2. Nadarajan ...Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
for the records in pertaining to the Final Report filed in C.C.No.38 of
2013 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Alandur,
Kanchipuram District and quash the same as far as the petitioner is
concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Diwakar
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Govt. Advocate
ORDER
Sixth Accused in C.C.No.38 of 2013, now pending on the file of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur is the petitioner herein, who seeks to
quash the proceedings in the said Calendar Case under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is to be mentioned that among the accused in the said
Calendar Case, A1 and A3 have died and A4 and A5 are absconding.
The present petitioner is arrayed as A6 and another accused is A2.
They both alone are appearing before the Court.
3. The entire issue revolves around the property of one
Vijayaraghavan, who died without leaving any legal heirs. Taking
advantage of that particular aspect, the facts reveal that, A4 and A5
had impersonated as the legal heirs of the said Vijayaraghavan. In
this, A1 appears to have played a major role and the petitioner herein
obtained documents relating to the property from A1 and also paid
Rs.11,00,000/- by way of cheque. Copy of that particular cheque has
been submitted as document to the present proceedings.
4. Thereafter, the de facto complainant, alongwith his friends,
has given an offer to purchase the said property and the petitioner is
said to have received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- being one half of the
value of the property, after taking into consideration the stamp duty
payable from the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant then
found that he would never get valid title over the property. In those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
circumstances, he had given a complaint which led to filing of First
Information Report in Crime No.188 of 2007 on 24.4.2007 by the
Central Crime Branch, Chennai under Sections 465, 467, 468, 477 and
420 IPC read with Section 120(b) read with Section 34 IPC.
5. Mr.S.Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner very
strenuously argued that there is no mens rea for the petitioner and he
has not committed any offence under Sections 468 and 477 IPC. He
also submitted that the petitioner also had bona fide belief that the
property had a valid title and had received documents from A1 and
paid Rs.11,00,000/- to A1. It is, therefore, submitted that his role was
very minimal and not that of creating any document and he was
merely in possession of the documents of the property offered for sale
and in that course of his offer, he had received a sum of Rs.3.67 lakhs
as the consideration towards one half of the value of the property. It
is therefore, contended that he has been made use of by the other
accused, who actually conspired to commit the offences attracting
Sections 465, 467, 468, 477 and 420 IPC read with Section 120(b)
read with Section 34 IPC.
6. In the meantime, it is also seen that the de facto complainant
had also expired.
7. The statement of the de facto complainant had been read over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
to me and it is stressed by Mr.Diwakar, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the role of the petitioner herein is very minimal and he
had nothing to do with fabrication or forgery of documents and he had
only received the documents from A1 and handed over to the de facto
complainant.
8. These are all issues of fact which the present petitioner can
very well establish during the course of trial. The prosecution alleges
that he is also involved in the said conspiracy and therefore, invoked
Section 120B IPC and Section 34 IPC as against the petitioner herein.
Therefore, to deviate himself from the charges levelled against other
accused, he will necessarily have to test the statements of the
witnesses during the course of cross-examination and that evidence,
after being tested by the petitioner, will have to be analysed and
judgment will have to be passed by the Judicial Magistrate Alandur. A
prima facie opinion on this aspect cannot be given.
9. The de facto complainant had mentioned the name of the
petitioner in the course of his statement. Though he is not alive today,
to substantiate his statement, the prosecution has to still establish that
the petitioner herein was directly involved in all the charges. That
burden can never shift from the prosecution. That can be determined
only during the course of trial. Sufficient opportunity would be given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
to the petitioner, who can put forward his defence that he had no role
in the entire transaction and also impress upon the learned Judicial
Magistrate that he has been unnecessarily implicated in the entire
sequence of events. These are, again, aspects which can be decided
only on conclusion of trial and not on perusal of the 161 Statement as
presented by the investigating officer. It was only for the purpose of
taking cognizance of final report presented before the court.
10. Therefore, let the trial proceed and the petitioner/A6 may
cross- examine the witnesses, put their statements to test and impress
upon the learned Judicial Magistrate as to his lack of mens rea role in
the entire transaction.
11. With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner/A6 to putforth his case
during the course of trial. It is hoped that the Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur would take necessary steps with respect to the abscondence of
A4 and A5 and if possible, commence the trial against A2 and A6 on
the basis of the available materials on record. The connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
ssk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Ssk
To
1. Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur,
Kanchipuram District.
2. Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Chennai – 600 007.
Crl.O.P.No.16859 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
