Madras High Court
N.Ethiraj (M/A-74 Years) vs The Commissioner Of Police on 16 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
N.Ethiraj (M/A-74 years) ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner of Police,
O/o. Commissioner of Police,
E.V.K. Sampath Road, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
(Opp. Periyar Thidal)
2.The Inspector of Police,
Land Grabbing Wing,
Central Crime Branch,
18th Team, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
3.K.Vinayagamurthy
4.V.Bharat Babu
5.V.Uma ... Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of order dated 02.05.2022
passed in Crl.M.P.No.167 of 2022, on the file of the learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate, Land Grabbing Court II, Egmore at Allikulam
and to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the order and to
set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Anandaraj
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated
02.05.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.167 of 2022 passed by the learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate for land grabbing Court No.II, whereby the
petition filed by the petitioner to refer his complaint for investigation under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was rejected by finding that the dispute raised in
the complaint are of Civil in nature and essentially is of title dispute.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the order of the
court below on the ground that the purpose of referring the complaint
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., is to investigate an offence punishable
under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the
learned Magistrate neither conducted an enquiry nor directed the Police to
conducted an inquiry but come to the conclusion that the dispute is Civil in
nature. The learned Magistrate ought to have taken into account Clause
562 Police Standing Order for the purpose of referring the complaint for
inquiry and to investigate the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Once
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
the complaint discloses the cognizable offence, the learned Magistrate
ought not to have given the finding as the dispute is Civil in nature.
3.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing
for the respondent/Police would contend that the complaint is essentially
one relating to the validity of the Settlement Deed dated 05.12.2003, which
was executed by one of the legal heirs, who also claims that she got the title
orally and executed the document. In such case, even if the document is
invalid the matter has to be essentially agitated before the Civil Forum.
Absolutely there is no forgery or signature by impersonation. The accused
being one of the legal heirs, the finding of the Trial Court cannot be faulted.
4.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of this case.
5.Perusal of the settlement deed would make it clear that the
executor is also a legal heir and she claims title. It is said that the criminal
quality of an act is neither discernible by intuition nor it can be judged by
any standards, but it has to be expressly defined in law with penal
consequences. Therefore, in order to claim an offence of forgery, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
proposed accused should be said to have made a false document as defined
under Section 464 of IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
Judgment of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar1, has
clearly explained about the three types of false documents as envisaged in
Section 464 of IPC, and it is useful to extract the paragraph No.14 of the
said Judgment, which reads as follows:-
“14.An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal
Code shows that it divides false documents into
three categories:
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or
fraudulently makes or executes a document with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such
document was made or executed by some other
person, or by the authority of some other person, by
whom or by whose authority he knows it was not
made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly
or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters
a document in any material part, without lawful
authority, after it has been made or executed by
either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or
fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or
alter a document knowing that such person could
not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b)
intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him,
know the contents of the document or the nature of
the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a
“false document”, if (i) he made or executed a
1 2009 8 SCC 751
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
document claiming to be someone else or
authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or
tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a
document by practising deception, or from a person
not in control of his senses.
6.Therefore, it may be seen that even an untenable claim of title by a
legal heir and execution of settlement deed would not per se come under
any of the above mentioned three types of false documents. Therefore,
finding no error in the order of the Trial Court, this Criminal Revision is
dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to agitate his
grievance in the manner known to law, for redressal of his grievances.
16.06.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking order
klt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
To
1.The Special Metropolitan Magistrate,
Land Grabbing Court II, Egmore, Allikulam.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
O/o. Commissioner of Police,
E.V.K. Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
(Opp. Periyar Thidal)
4.The Inspector of Police,
Land Grabbing Wing, Central Crime Branch,
18th Team, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
klt
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2022
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
