Madras High Court
Vijayakumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.7914 of 2020
Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
D. Nagar Police Station,
Puducherry
(Cr.No.6 of 2020)
2. Varalakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2020 on
the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajkumar Pandian
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.V.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor (Pondy)
For R2 : Mr.G.Thangavel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.6 of 2020
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 420, 465,
509 r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The second respondent lodged complaint alleging that he is the
tenant in the house belongs to one Jothismathy and the petitioner herein
fabricated the Special Power of Attorney dated 29.08.2012, as if the same was
executed by the said Jothismathy in favour of the petitioner, by forging her
signature. Using the said document the petitioner filed a petition for eviction in
R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif,
Puducherry. On receipt of the above said complaint filed under Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry, directed the first
respondent to registered the present case.
3. Heard Mr.Rajkumar Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
first respondent and Mr.G.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
4. It is seen that the property situated at No.25, Kamaraj Salai
Pettaiyanchathiram, Thattanchavady, Puducherry-09, which is owned by the
principal of the petitioner herein. She executed Power of Attorney in favour of
the petitioner on 29.08.2012, since the principal left to abroad and settled along
with her son. Therefore, to look after the property, the petitioner was appointed
as a power agent. On the strength of the Special Power of Attorney, the
petitioner filed petition as against the second respondent for eviction in
R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2013 before the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, on the
ground of wilful default, owner's occupation etc.
5. In fact, while pending the eviction petition, the second respondent
was directed to deposit the rent arrears amount on condition that if the second
respondent failed to deposit the arrears of rent amount, all further proceedings
will be stopped and eviction will be ordered under Section 11(4) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent preferred an appeal in
R.C.A.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
(Rent Control Appellate Authority) Puducherry, and the same was also
dismissed by the judgment decree dated 11.03.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
6. Thereafter, as against both the orders passed by the learned Rent
Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the second respondent
filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP No.3201 of 2019 and
the same was also dismissed. The second respondent suffered with eviction
order and to escape from the clutches of law, lodged the peresent complaint
with allegations that the petitioner fabricated the Power of Attorney Documents
thereby forged the signature of the original landlady.
7. It is seen from the records that for the past 16 years, the second
respondent managed to stay in the premises owned by the petitioner's principal
and evaded the eviction proceeding by way of filing the Civil Revision Petition.
After dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, the second respondent filed a
complaint that too for direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and the same
was directed to conduct enquiry. On the said direction, the first respondent
registered the present case in Crime No.6 of 2020 for offences under Sections
420, 465, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
8. It is also seen from the Special Power of Attorney execute by the
petitioner's principal and also from the affidavit filed by her, both revealed that
the principal viz., Jothishmathy, W/o. Late Nesian executed the Special General
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner on 29.08.2012. On the strength of
the said Special Power of Attorney, the petitioner filed petition for eviction and
the same was also allowed. That apart, the second respondent never raised this
issue during the rent control proceedings or before this Court in the Civil
Revision Petition, while challenging the order of eviction. Therefore, it is
nothing but clear malafide proceedings and it cannot be sustained as against the
petitioner.
9. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgement reported in
(1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in
which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:-
"102..........
...................
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with malafide and/or where the
proceedings is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law
and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
the F.I.R. in Crime No.6 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent is hereby
quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
To
1. The Inspector of Police
D. Nagar Police Station,
Puducherry
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
Crl.O.P.No.19575 of 2020
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
