Madras High Court
M.Murugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 October, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.4077 of 2021
M.Murugan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Inspector of Police,
Team-27, Central Crime Branch,
Veppery, Chennai – 8.
(Crime No.9 of 2020)
2.Mr.P.Jothi
...
Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records and to quash the impugned FIR, registered in Crime No.9
of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent police, in so far as the petitioner / 5 th
accused is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Veeramani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: Mr.R.Krishnasamy for R2
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred to call for the records
and to quash the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.9 of 2020, on the file
of the 1st respondent police, in so far as the petitioner / 5 th accused is
concerned.
2. Heard Mr.R.Veeramani, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent and Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned counsel for the second
respondent.
3. The defacto complainant is the father of the first accused. The
second accused is the wife of the first accused. The third accused is the son of
the first accused. The fifth accused is the agreement holder in respect of the
disputed property. The said agreement has been executed by the first accused
in favour of the fifth accused. As per the case of the prosecution, the defacto
complainant being the absolute owner of the disputed property was in
enjoyment of the same. The property was allotted to the share of the second
respondent in a family partition. The defacto complainant has settled the above
said property in favour of his daughters viz., Anandhi, Meera and Uma. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021
first accused who is the son of the defacto complainant had settled the very
same property in favour of his wife / second accused, despite knowing that he
did not have any title in the property. Thereafter, A1 colluded with A2 and A3
and with the arrangement made by A6, they entered into a sale agreement with
the petitioner / fifth accused to sell the property in favour of the petitioner /
fifth accused for a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,00,000/-. On the above
allegations, a case has been registered in Crime No.9 of 2020, against the
accused persons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner /
fifth accused is an innocent purchaser who had entered into a sale agreement
by believing that his vendors have title in respect of the disputed property;
since the dispute is only between the defacto complainant and his son, the
petitioner can in no way be impleaded in the complaint given by the second
respondent.
5. The dispute between the defacto complainant and his son in respect
of the disputed property can be civil in nature, but the defacto complainant has
alleged that his son had criminal intention to create documents in favour of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021
wife by knowing very well that he did not have any title in respect of the
disputed property; so far as the petitioner / fifth accused is concerned, he is a
third party and he is not the family member of the defacto complainant and he
had not entered into any family settlement with the defacto complainant. Since
the partition between the defacto complainant and the first accused is said to
be an oral partition, the facts about the partition can only be within the
knowledge of the defacto complainant and the accused or any of the family
members. The fifth accused is the outsider and he cannot be aware of the
partition deed unless it is a registered one.
6. So far as the petitioner / fifth accused is concerned, he had entered
into an agreement with the first accused by believing that he would have had a
valid title. If the first accused does not have any valid title and he had received
money from the petitioner / fifth accused, that will affect the interest of the
petitioner / fifth accused as well. In any case, the petitioner / fifth accused who
is also an aggrieved person, cannot be arrayed as an accused, though he could
have been considered as a witness. In fact, the Bank statement of the petitioner
/ fifth accused would also show that he has paid advance amount in pursuance
of the alleged sale agreement. So the defacto complainant can maintain his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021
case by alleging any criminal intention only against his son or any of his family
members and not against an outsider / petitioner who is not a party to the
alleged oral partition.
7. Since there is no prima facie materials available on record to show
that the petitioner / fifth accused have any criminal intention to enter into a
sale agreement with the first accused in respect of the disputed property, I find
no reason to implead him as the accused in this case. It is relevant to refer the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and
Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme
Court Cases 335, as shown under:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021
of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the Institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge”
8. The facts of this case would show that no case is made out against
the petitioner and hence it is an appropriate case where this Court can invoke
its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as against
the petitioner / fifth accused.
9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR
in Crime No.9 of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent police is quashed as
against the petitioner / fifth accused. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 10.10.2022
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Team-27, Central Crime Branch,
Veppery, Chennai – 8.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.6175 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.4077 of 2021
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
