Madras High Court
D.Venkatesan vs The State Represented By on 5 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl. O.P. No.15041 of 2021
and Crl.M.P. No.8203 of 2021
1. D.Venkatesan
2. V.Nagarajan
3. V.Surendran .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch – II,
Chennai CCB.
Crime No.82 of 2021.
2. Karate Karrthi ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the case in
Cr.No.82 of 2021 on the file of the First Respondent police and quash
the same.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr. R.Thamaraiselvan
for Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent-1: Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
2: Mr. Prakash Goklaney
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Cr.No.82 of 2021 on the file of the First Respondent
police.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a
complaint given by the second respondent/de facto complainant, a case
has been registered in Cr. No.82 of 2021 before the first respondent
with regard to the civil dispute between the petitioners and the second
respondent; the first respondent police, knowing pretty well about the
civil nature of the complaint, had chosen to register a criminal
complaint; the first respondent police had attempted to paint criminal
colour for a civil case, which is forbidden in law and hence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
proceedings in Cr. No.82 of 2021, should be quashed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
4. A perusal of the records shows that there are civil disputes
pending between the petitioners on the one hand and the de facto
complainant on the other hand. The mother of the de facto complainant
filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2014 before the District Munsif,
Poonamallee for mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction.
The suit was also dismissed on 21.01.2019. In turn, the first petitioner
had filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 2015 before the Sub-Judge,
Poonamallee against the mother of the de facto complainant and the
Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board claiming the relief of partition,
delivery of possession and permanent injunction and the said suit in
O.S.No.39 of 2015 came to be decreed on 06.1.2016. The mother of the
de facto complainant and the de facto complainant have also filed yet
another suit in O.S.No.194 of 2020 before the District Munsif Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
Poonamallee seeking (i) the relief of permanent injunction, (ii) to
declare the decree and judgment in O.S.No.39 of 2015 on the file of the
Sub Court, Poonamallee as null and void; (iii) to declare the settlement
deed registered as Doc.No.3918 of 2018 on the file of Sub Registrar
Office, Virugambakkam, executed between petitioners 1 and 3 herein
as null and void; and (iv) for mandatory injunction.
5. On perusal of the complaint of the de facto complainant, it is
seen that the allegations are predominantly civil in nature. The dispute
is with regard to a pathway. The rightful course open to the parties is to
contest the civil case. If certain conveyances are executed by persons
and if they do not have any validity or entitlement, the same can also
challenged only before the Civil Court. Unless the Civil Court decides
about the veracity or otherwise of the allegations of the respective
parties and renders a finding, the contents in the complaint of the de
facto complainant cannot be held to be true.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
6. The allegation of the second respondent in his complaint is that
the petitioners had executed deeds with a view to defeat his interest.
7. There is no specific allegation in the complaint of the de facto
complainant that the petitioners had forged anyone's signature. The
allegation was to the effect that the de facto complainant and his
mother were unaware of the execution of certain conveyances made by
the petitioners. The above allegation exactly makes out a civil case and
not a criminal case including forgery.
8. Even though there is no bar to register a criminal case in view
of the pending civil disputes between the parties, the said bar should be
exercised by the first respondent police cautiously. In the case on hand,
the allegations do not even refer to any criminal action, but they refer
about certain transactions, for which, the second respondent's mother
has objections. Having approached the Civil Court and filed a civil suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
against the petitioners in order to decide the dispute between
themselves, the second respondent has filed the criminal complaint.
Hence, the first respondent police ought to have made a preliminary
enquiry in view of the civil suits pending between the petitioners and
the second respondent. In that case the first respondent could have
closed the case as it is civil in nature. Instead, the first respondent
police has registered a criminal case without any basis.
9. Since a criminal colour has been given for a civil dispute,
which arose between the parties, the case in Cr. No.82 of 2021 pending
against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
In result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case
in Cr. No.82 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent is hereby
quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2022
Index: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
Internet: Yes/No
RS/bkn
To:
1.The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch – II,
Chennai CCB.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.15041 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
RS/bkn
CRL. O.P. No.15041 of 2021
05.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
