Madras High Court
S.Sugumar vs The State Rep. By The on 5 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.25082 of 2019
And
Crl.M.P.No. 13381 of 2019
1. S.Sugumar
2. A.H.Shagabudeen
3. A.H.Mohammed Farook
4. Najumunisa ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 to 5
&7
Vs
1. The State Rep. By the
The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Villupuram,
Villupuram District. ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Thamimul Ansari ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records pending on the file of the first respondent police, namely,
Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,Villupuram, Villupuram District
in Crime No.4 of 2019 and to quash the criminal proceedings.
***
For Petitioners : Mr. M.Machavatharan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Petition is to quash the FIR in Cr.No. 4 of 2019 under Sections
120-B, 423, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
2. It is alleged in the FIR that the land measuring 0.25 cents in S.No.
344/7 in kottakuppam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District belong to
the defacto complainant and six others. However, suppressing the fact that
the land belongs to seven persons, the first accused had executed a power of
attorney claiming exclusive title in favour of the second accused; the said
power of attorney was executed in France and the adjudication was done in
India before the Sub Registrar, Tindivanam; that without valid title, the
accused 1 and 2 sold the properties in favour of the third to seventh accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are subsequent purchasers and have nothing to do with the
alleged dispute between the defacto complainant and the first accused and
others. Even if the first accused and second accused have made a false claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of title to the property, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the offences
of forgery or for offences under Section 423. They are purchasers for
valuable consideration. The learned counsel submitted that the facts of the
case would squarely be covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in (2009) 8 SCC 751 [Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar &
Another].
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
allegation is that the first accused had falsely claimed title over the entire
extent of property when the property belonged to six others. He had
executed power of attorney in favour of the second accused and the
petitioners are the subsequent purchasers.
5. This Court on reading of the impugned FIR finds that the allegations
suggest that the first accused by making a false claim of title had executed
power of attorney in favour of the second accused. The second accused had
sold the property in favour of the petitioners. There is no allegation of
forgery. Hence, the offence under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC are not
made out. It is also not the case of fraudulent execution of sale deed
containing false statement for consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2009) 8 SCC 751
[Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another] squarely
applies to the facts of the case. The relevant portions are extracted
hereunder:-
“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
bona fide 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 requirement that
it should have been made with the intention of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
17. When a document is executed by a person
claiming a property which is not his, he is not
claiming that he is someone else nor is he
claiming that he is authorised by someone else.
Therefore, execution of such document
(purporting to convey some property of which he
is not the owner) is not execution of a false
document as defined under Section 464 of the
Code. If what is executed is not a false document,
there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then
neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code
are attracted.”
7. In view of the same, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
FIR in Cr.No. 4 of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent is
quashed in so far as the petitioners are conerned. Consequently, connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.04.2023
vsg
Index: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
vsg
To
1. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.25082 of 2019
And
Crl.M.P.No. 13381 of 2019
05.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
