Madras High Court

Peter vs The State Rep.By on 3 March, 2022

                                                                       Crl.O.P.(MD)No.732 of 2020

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 03.03.2022

                                                      CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                         CRL.O.P.(MD).No.732 of 2020
                                                    and
                                      CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.298 and 299 of 2020
                     1.Peter
                     2.K.R.Chandrasekaran
                     3.Boomi                                 ... Petitioners / Accused 9 to 11
                                                         -Vs-
                     1.The State rep.by
                        Inspector of Police,
                        District Crime Branch,
                        Dindigul.
                        (Crime No.46 of 2016)                ... 1st Respondent / Complainant


                     2.Muthusamy                             ... 2nd Respondent / 1st Informant


                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
                     to call for the records in C.C.No.31 of 2019 on the file of the Special
                     Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai and quash
                     the same as against this petitioners.


                     1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                        Crl.O.P.(MD)No.732 of 2020



                                     For Petitioner    : Mr.K.Vinayagan
                                     For R1            : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
                                                         Government Advocate
                                     For R2            : Mr.C.M.Arumugam


                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for

Exclusive Trial and Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai.

2.The allegation in the First Information Report indicates that

the petitioners 1 and 2 are the brothers and the property in question

belongs to their maternal grandmother, namely, Pechiammal. She had

four sons and two daughters. Out of four male legal heirs, two of them

died. The petitioners are claiming right to one of the female legal heir of

the said Pechiammal. Their case is that A1 is the son of one of the

daughters of the said Pechiammal, A2 is the mother of A1 and A3 is the

father of A1. A4 is the daughter of A5 and A6 is the daughter of A3. A7

and A8 are the sons of one another male sons of Pechiammal. A9 is the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.732 of 2020

document writer, A10 is the Sub-Registrar, A11 is the purchaser of the

property.

3.The crux of the allegation in the First Information Report

indicates that as if the petitioners 9 to 11 herein and others by creating

false documents, have sold the property for which the Sub-Registrar also

registered the document. The First Information Report has been lodged

against all the accused persons.

4.It is relevant to note that to attract the offence under Section

468 of IPC, it must be shown that the accused had created false

documents. The very case itself indicates that some of the legal heirs

have sold the property, claiming to their own. Such eventuality will not

lead to a situation that they created false documents. Therefore, merely

some of the co-owners have dealt with the property, the offences alleged

in the First Information Report would not be attracted.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.732 of 2020

5.In this regard, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of

Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. The relevant portion

of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“14.An analysis of section 464 of 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.732 of 2020

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 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 practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.

16.There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.732 of 2020

requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.

19.To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived

(i) to deliver any property to any person, or

(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).

21.It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.732 of 2020

be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.

A clarification

23.When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.732 of 2020

6.Considering the same, merely the property was dealt with by

some of the sharers, such act would not fall within the ambit of creating

false documents. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands

allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2019 on the file of the

Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai, is

quashed against the petitioners 9 to 11. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

03.03.2022

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Myr

1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul.