Madras High Court
M.Kaliappan vs The Inspector Of Police on 1 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.14222 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.7436 of 2021
1. M.Kaliappan
2. V.Krishnakumar
3. V.Veluchamy
4. M.Karuppachamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.16 of 2020)
2. K.Manonmani ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in
Crime No.16 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same
insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Gangai Amaran
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1
Mr.R.Mathialagan for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR
in Crime No.16 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant states that
the defacto complainant is a permanent resident of the above said address and
she is the eldest daughter of S.K.S.Kalimuthu Pillai and Arunagiri Ammal, who
are residents of Sangupillai and Arunagiri Ammal, who are residents of
Sangapillai Pudur and that her father was possessing property comprised in
S.Nos.42/1C, 42/1D, 42/2 and 43/3B of an extent of 33 cents situated at
Oddanchathiram Village and Town, Dindigul District and it is further alleged
that she got one brother and two sisters and that the said property is an ancestral
property and that the second respondent / defacto complainant has been in
possession and enjoyment of the said property as a joint property along with his
brother and sisters and it is further alleged that her father namely,
S.K.S.Kalimuthu Pillai died on 07.01.2008 leaving behind her mother
Arunagiri Ammal, her brother namely, S.K.S.Sivayogi and two sisters, namely,
Sivagami and Umadevi respectively. It is further alleged that during the life
time of her father, he sold some extent of properties and remaining properties
were maintained by the second respondent / defacto complainant and her
mother and brothers and further it is alleged that she along with her sisters
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
requested her brother for partition of the said properties but his brother refused
to do so and in view of above refusal, serious differences arose between the
sisters and their brother and it is further alleged that she was unable to manage
the properties and it is further alleged that since she was staying at Karur,
taking advantage of such situation, the brother S.K.S.Sivayogi has sold some
extent of properties on various occasions without her knowledge and it is
further alleged that they are the properties which are used for agricultural
purposes and some extent of lands are lying as dry vacant lands.
3. He would also further alleged that her mother Arunagiri Ammal also
died on 01.03.2018 leaving behind her son and the defacto complainant and
sisters and after such demise of her mother, she went to the house of her brother
S.K.S.Sivayogi and demanded for partition of the properties, but he refused to
do so and promising and delaying for partition, and in such circumstances, she
made an application before the Sub Registrar for issuance of encumbrance
certificate in respect of some portion of the properties and at that time, she
noticed that in respect of some portion of the property and at that time she
noticed that in respect of some portion of the property belonging to her family
as mentioned in the Survey Numbers above, her father S.K.S.Kalimuthu Pillai
along with his own brother S.K.S.Somu have executed a General Power of
Attorney in favour of M.Kaliappan on 11.11.2005, vide document No.
313 /2005, which was having two portions I.e. “A” schedule which was allotted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
to S.K.S.Kalimuthu Pillai i.e father of the defacto complainant / second
respondent and “B” schedule property allotted to S.K.S.Somu, brother of her
father and further the said Kaliappan, on the strength of the registered power
deed, had executed a sale deed in favour of one Krishnakumar vide document
No.1102/2008 and some extent of property in favour of one Veluchamy vie
Document No.1103/2008, dated 23.05.2008 and another extent of property was
also sold on 23.05.2008 and another extent of property was also sold by
Kaliappan in favour of one Karuppuchamy which is mentioned as “A”schedule
property.
4. He further stated that her father died on 07.01.2008 and after four
months period, the petitioners suppressing death of her father, made a story that
once principal is died, the power of attorney cannot be acted upon and by
suppressing this fact, the accused / petitioners have created forged documents
and registered such documents in the office of the Sub Registrar,
Oddanchathiram and based on invalid power of attorney, the Accused No.2 and
executed a sale deed in favour of Karuppuchamy vide Document No.1580/2011
and further the said Murugesan on 03.06.2011 vide Document No.1580/2011
and further the said Murugesan in turn executed another sale deed in favour of
one Selvi, who is arrayed as seventh accused vide document No.1581/2011 and
further the said Karuppuchamy, who is arrayed as Accused No.8 on the strength
of the power of attorney and further the said Veluchamy and Krishnakumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
have executed various power of attorneys and sale deeds in favour of various
persons after knowing the death of father of the defacto complainant / second
respondent and thus cheated the defacto complainant / second respondent.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a
case in Crime No.16 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 294(b),
420, 467, 468 and 506(ii) IPC as against the petitioners.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file the
final report before the concerned court.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further the
FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, it cannot
be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie
commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with
the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the
Code.
9. It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau. Kamal
Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
"4. The only point that arises for our
consideration in this case is whether the High
Court was right in setting aside the order by which
process was issued. It is settled law that the
Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and
summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind
only with a view to taking cognizance of the
offence, or in other words, to find out whether a
prima facie case has been made out for summoning
the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not
required to evaluate the merits of the material or
evidence in support of the complaint, because the
Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find
out whether the materials would lead to a
conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is
called for only in a case where the complaint does
not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious,
or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is
open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not
necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case
should be done before the Trial to find out whether
the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it
appears on a reading of the complaint and
consideration of the allegations therein, in the light
of the statement made on oath that the ingredients
of the offence are disclosed, there would be no
justification for the High Court to interfere.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
6.........
7.........
8........
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel
and examined the material on record, we are of the
considered view that the High Court ought not to
have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court
issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of
the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences
that are alleged against the Respondents. The
correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has
to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage
of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts
to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits
of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.
Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on
the ground that the allegations made therein
appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of
the offence alleged against the accused are prima
facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted."
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. However, the first respondent police is directed to complete the
investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
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.
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14222 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.14222 of 2021
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
