Madras High Court
Hazeena Alias R.Srimathy vs State Represented By on 8 June, 2022
Crl.OP.No.2349 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P. No.2349 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.No.1034 of 2022
1. Hazeena Alias R.Srimathy
2. R.Sulaiman ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State represented by
Inspector of Police [Crime],
Egmore Police Station,
Chennai – 600 008.
[Crime No.730 of 2021]
2. R.Sivakumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.730 of 2021
dated 28.11.2021 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
- R1
Mr.K.Gowthaman – R2
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
Crl.OP.No.2349 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report filed for the alleged offences under section 468, 471 of
IPC.
2. The allegations in the First Information Report indicate that the
petitioners have forged the documents to show as if their grandfather
G.Ramakrishnan attempted to obtain legal heir certificate. The specific
allegation in the First Information Report relate to forgery of certain
documents which require proper investigation. Though it is the contention
of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that it is purely forging
of legal heir certificate and the matter is also pending revision between the
parties, this Court is of the view that the same is not a ground to quash the
First Information Report.
3. In this regard it is relevant to refer the latest judgment of the Apex
Court in Crl.A.No.741 of 2022, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has
held as follows :
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2349 of 2022
“The Court interferes in criminal proceedings, in exercise
of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in rare and
exceptional cases, to give effect to the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice.
While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry into whether there is reliable evidence or not. The
jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution only when such exercise is justified by the specific
provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Itself.
The criminal proceedings can be said to be an abuse of
the process of Court, to warrant intervention under Section 482
Cr.P.C., when the allegations in the FIR do not at all disclose
any offence or there are materials on record from which the
Court can reasonably arrive at a finding that the proceedings
are in abuse of the process of the Court.
In this case, it appears that the High Court fell in error in
taking an adverse view only because the complainant had not
challenged the genuineness of the will by bringing any action in
a Court of law and further, the respondents had brought a suit
for injunction against the complainant. There can be no doubt
that in the civil suit, the burden would be on the plaintiff
relying on a will to establish the genuineness of the will on the
basis of which relief/permanent injunction is claimed. However,
that does not prevent the accused, who can be defendants in
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2349 of 2022
such a civil suit from initiating criminal proceedings on the
contention that the will is forged/fabricated.”
4. In the light of the above judgment and the fact that the allegations
in the First Information Report indicate that cognizable offence has been
prima facie made out, the same has to be properly investigated by the
investigating Agency, this Court is of the view that at this stage this Court
cannot go into the factual aspects while exercising its jurisdiction under
section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Accordingly, his Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.06.2022
vrc
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
O/o.The Commissioner,
132, EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Periamet, Chennai – 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
F-9, Thiru.Vee. Ka Nagar Police Station,
Puliyanthoppu District, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2349 of 2022
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
Crl.O.P. No.2349 of 2022
08.06.2022
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
