Madras High Court
Ayyadurai vs State Through Its Inspector Of ... on 23 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23/03/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.105 of 2019
Ayyadurai : Petitioner/A3
Vs.
1.State through its Inspector of Police,
Kulathur Circle,
Kulathur Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
2.A.Perumal : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CC No.25 of
2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ka.Ramakrishnan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent : M/s.Baskar Mathuram
for M/s.Mathuram Law Associates
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the CC No.25 of 2012 on the file of the
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam,
Tuticorin District.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The property situated in survey Nos.242, 340/6, 349/4,
385/1-B, 383-ID, 387-5, 390-4 belonged to the de-facto
complainant. By impersonation, A1 executed a sale deed, on
11/04/2008 in favour of one Coastal Energen Private
Limited. During the process of impersonation, A1 photo has
been affixed as if he is the de-facto complainant. He put
his thumb impression in the document. A2, A3, A3 and A5
having known that the property belonged to the de-facto
complainant, colluded, conspired together and also actively
took part in the above said transaction of impersonation.
The accused 6 and 7 signed as witnesses in the document.
The thumb impression of this petitioner was sent to the
forensic science lab and it was found that it tallies with
that of the thumb impression in the disputed document. On
the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto
complainant, investigation was undertaken. During the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioner
came to notice and so, final report was filed in CC No.25
of 2012 on the file of the trial court.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, the 3rd petitioner has
preferred this quash petition mainly on the ground that the
disputed document, as mentioned by the de-facto
complainant, is not a sale deed, but actually it is a power
of attorney deed and his involvement is not found out
during the course of investigation, he is a practising
Advocate, his name has been wrongly included in the final
report and no materials have been collected during the
course of investigation to show his involvement.
4.Heard both sides.
5.It is a case of impersonation, as mentioned above,
it is a specific case of the de-facto complainant as well
as the respondent police that by impersonating the de-facto
complainant, A1 executed a sale deed in favour of the above
said company called 'Coastal Energen Private Limited'.
But it is seen that the disputed thumb impression was sent
to the forensic science laboratory, Madurai and it was
found that it tallies with that of the thumb impression of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
A1. Prima facie materials have been collected during the
course of investigation. Now the petitioner says that
actually the document in dispute is not a sale deed and
actually, it is only a power of attorney as mentioned
above. The copy of the document is also produced in the
typed set of papers. It is a registered power of attorney
deed. No doubt that there is some doubt with regard to the
nature of the document.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on
the basis of the above said document, would submit that
mere power of attorney will not create any right in favour
of any one. The document reads that it was executed by one
A.Perumal.
7.According to the de-facto complainant, he has been
impersonated in favour of one M.K.Balaji. But whether this
document is the disputed or not is not clear on record. It
is a matter for trial and this document was not also seized
or recovered during the course of investigation.
8.On the basis of the argument now advanced, this
court cannot record any finding or observation to the
effect that what was executed was only the power of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
attorney and not a sale deed. The involvement of the
petitioner has been spoken by A1 in the course of his
confession statement.
9.Reading of the statement shows that this petitioner
was also present and asked him to go to the Sub Registrar
Office and put his thumb impression and only in pursuance
of the above said instruction, he went to the Sub Registrar
office and without knowing the real nature of the
transaction, he put his thumb impression and towards that
he was also paid Rs.1,000/- by the 4th accused Madasamy.
Whether the confession statement of A1 is reliable or not
is a matter for consideration during the course of trial.
10.When a serious allegation of impersonation has been
made and A1 has also spoken about the involvement of this
petitioner, more particularly, when he has stated that only
at the instigation and advise, he put the thumb impression
in the disputed document, it will not be proper on the part
of this court to quash the criminal proceedings, simply
because the petitioner is a practising Advocate
11.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would rely upon number of judgments for the purpose of
argument that the power of attorney deed will not create
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
any right in favour of any one.
12.This is the settled position law in the celebrated
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj
lamb & Industries (P) Limited Vs. State of Haryana (SLP(C)
No.13917 of 2009, dated 11.10.2011). The matter under
discussion was, whether a power of attorney, sale agreement
which are usually executed between the parties in the
course of sale transaction or developmental transaction is
valid under law. But here, we are concerning about the
impersonation. Similarly the issue involved in Mohammed
Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2009)3
SCC (Cri) 929, which is also a celebrated case. But it is
not relevant for discussion.
13.Absolutely, it is a case of impersonation herein.
So the petitioner cannot take advantage of the observation
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed
Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihiar. The only point to
be decided, as mentioned earlier, during the course of
trial is whether this petitioner is involved in the above
said conspiracy, abetment, instigation etc.
14.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
would straightaway rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Asoke Baskar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (CDJ 2010 SC 912) for the purpose of
argument that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
either 120-B or section 34 of IPC are not attracted. The
case of impersonation cannot be lightly taken that it is a
civil dispute.
15.At no stretch of imagination, the allegation of
impersonation can be construed as 'civil dispute'. So this
is not a fittest case to exercise the jurisdiction under
section 482 Cr.P.C. So absolutely, I find no merit in this
petition. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
23.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.254 of 2019
23/03/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
