Madras High Court
Vinotha @ Vinothamma vs The State Rep.By on 9 August, 2023
1 of 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.9914 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.5840 of 2022
1.Vinotha @ Vinothamma, F/A 62 yrs
W/o.T.V.Nanjundappa
2.N.Manjunath, M/A.41 yrs
S/o. T.V.Nanjundappa .. Petitioners /Accused 1 & 2
.Vs.
1.The State rep.by
Inspector of Police
DCB Police Station
Krishnagiri.
(Crime No.4 of 2022)
.. Respondent/ Complainant
2.Harish
S/o.Anumappa ..Respondent/de facto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for th records in Crime No.4 of 2022, pending on the file of the
District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri, qush the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Ravikumar Paul
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Paul and Paul
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
for R1
Mr.M.Loganathan for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 10
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR pending investigation
before the 1st respondent in Crime No.44 of 2022.
2.Heard Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners,
Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1 and
Mr.M.Loganathan, learned counsel for R2.
3.The issue that is involved in the present writ petition has been succinctly
captured in the order dated 11.8.2022 passed at the time of admission of this
criminal original petition and the same is extracted hereunder:
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
FIR in Crime No.4 of 2022, on the file of the 1 st respondent Police,
for offence under Sections 464, 467, 471 and 420 of IPC.
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
pointed out the title of the property involved in this petition.
According to him, originally, the property was owned by one
Muniyappa and the total extent is 13.36 acres in survey No.345.
The said Muniyappa had four grandsons, each of them partitioned
1/4 shares and each become entitled to 3.36 acres. Whereas the 2
nd respondent derived the title from the person, who was sold
excessive land showing sale of 5.20 acres as against 13.36 acres
originally entitled. It is his further contention that the petitioners
also purchased 3.36 acres in three survey numbers and in the
remaining area, they were in possession in the property
ancestrally. It is also submitted that the patta was issued by the
Head Quaters Deputy Tahsildar in this regard and encumbrance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis certificate is also clearly reflected the sale deed as well as the
3 of 10
settlement deed executed by the petitioners in the year 2007 itself.
According to the learned Senior Counsel, the 2nd respondent
purchased the property in the year 2020, within a five days, the
patta has been changed in his name and now, the entire revenue
department is supporting him.
3.Whereas the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent would submit that at the time of registration of the
settlement deed in the year 2007, the patta has been relied as
document. According to him, the said patta has been forged by the
petitioners. Hence, the complaint has been given against the
petitioners.
4.On perusal of the materials, this Court prima facie
satisfied it is a clear case that the dispute is with regard to the title
of the property. Now, with regard to the specific allegation, on
perusal of the typed set filed by the petitioners, the petitioners
relied upon the patta issued by the Revenue Department even at
the time of settlement in the year 2007. Now, it appears that the
Revenue Department has taken U-Turn and is supporting the
version of the 2nd respondent. The encumbrance certificate and 'A'
register are also in the name of the petitioners is very much find
place.
5.In such view of the matter, the 1st respondent Police is
required to conduct investigation with regard to 'A' register and
patta which are available in the Government records and also
required to conduct investigation as to how the entry related to the
settlement deed has not been reflected in the encumbrance
certificate produced by the 2nd respondent before this Court and
file a report.
6.Post the matter on 29.08.2022. Till then, the interim
order already granted by this Court on 28.04.2022 is extended.
4.The matter thereafter came up for hearing on 28.4.2022 and this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 10
passed the following order:
The case of the prosecution as per the defacto
complainant/R2, Harish is that he is the owner of the property
measuring to an extent of 1.91 acres in Survey No.345/1D and
345/1E in Avalapalli village. The further allegations is that the
accused had fabricated the documents and grabbed his
property.
2. Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the original
owners of the property and they have purchased the property
during the year 2002 and 2007. Thereafter, the 1 st petitioner
had settled the property in favour of the 2nd petitioner, who is
her son and there is no forgery or fabrication of documents
and they have been enjoying the property for the past 20
years. While so, the defacto complainant, who has
subsequently purchased the property, had stated that the
petitioners have fabricated the documents and grabbed his
property.
3. He would further submit that the petitioners have
been granted anticipatory bail by the Court. He would also
submit that the entire Encumbrance Certificate issued by the
Government would reflect that the petitioners, who are the
owners of the property, have been enjoying the property for
the past 20 years and without taking into consideration the
Encumbrance Certificate and other revenue records, the
respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.4 of
2022 as against the petitioners.
4. Prima facie case is made out for grant of interim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 10
stay. Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim stay for a
period of eight weeks.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice
for the 1 st respondent and the learned counsel for the
petitioner is also directed to take private notice on the 2 nd
respondent.
6. Post the matter on 23.06.2022.
5.The matter once again came up for hearing on 10.02.2023 and this Court
passed the following order:
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed to initiate
inquiry and to prosecute the 2 nd respondent under Section 340
r/w Section 195 of CrPC.
2. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1150 of 2023 sought permission of this
Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to take appropriate
steps in the manner known to law.
3. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and also the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court,
in the case of “Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi
Marwah and another” reported in [2005 4 SCC 370], this
Courts grants permission to the petitioner to withdraw this
petition, with liberty to workout his remedy in the manner known
to law.
4.When it is pointed out to the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal side) that, this Court, on 11.08.2022 directed
the 1 st respondent to conduct investigation, with regard to non
reflection of Settlement Deed in the encumbrance certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 10
produced by the 2nd respondent and to file a report in that
regard, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) seeks time
to file report.
5. Post the matter after two weeks.
6.Pursuant to the above order, a status report has also been filed by the DSP
of Police, District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri District.
7.The specific allegation that has been made by the 2nd respondent in the
Complaint given to the 1st respondent is that the property in Survey Nos.345/1D and
345/1E measuring an extent of 1.90 acres was purchased by the 2nd respondent
along with one Prabhu through a registered Sale Deed dated 6.1.2020 and this
document was registered as Document No.233 of2020. The 2nd respondent claims
that the purchase was made from one Chowdappa. It is further stated in the
Complaint that the said Chowdappa had purchased the property on 21.5.2007
through a registered Sale Deed Document No.8358 of 2007 from Kurrappa and 16
others. The predecessor in title traced their right through a Sale Deed dated
26.7.1962.
8.It is alleged in the Complaint that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the
property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 19.4.2002 and by virtue of this
Sale Deed she purchased the property in Survey Nos.345/1A2, 345/1A3 and 345/1C.
Thereafter, the 1st petitioner is said to have executed a settlement deed in favour of
the 2nd petitioner, who is her son on 7.2.2007 and had settled the property situated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 of 10
at Survey No.345/1D and 345/1E to an extent of 3.29 acres. According to the 2 nd
respondent, the extent of 1.90 acres that was purchased by them in the year 2020
was also added to the said Settlement Deed. It is with these allegations, the
Complaint was entertained by the 1st respondent and an FIR came to be registered
in Crime No.4 of 2022 for offence u/s.464, 467, 471 and 420 IPC.
9.To constitute the offence of forgery, the complaint has to first satisfy the
requirement u/s.464 viz., that the 1st petitioner has executed a false document in
favour of the 2nd petitioner. If that is not established, neither 467 nor 471 will be
attracted. In this case, the 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of the property in
Survey Nos.345/1D and 345/1E and such right is claimed by the 1st petitioner on the
ground that its an ancestral property. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner has executed
the Settlement Deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner as early as in the year 2007. The
2nd respondent was no where in the picture when this Settlement Deed was
executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner. After nearly 13 years,
when the 2nd respondent came into picture in the year 2020, a Complaint has been
given to the respondent Police as if, a fraudulent document has been executed by
the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd respondent. On the face of it, such an allegation
is unsustainable. If according to the 2nd respondent, the 1st petitioner does not have
even a semblance of right over the property in Survey No.45/1D and 345/1E, the 2nd
respondent has to necessarily workout the remedy only before the competent Civil
Court and establish the right. The same cannot be attempted to be achieved by
giving a police Complaint to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent cannot get into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 of 10
an enquiry to decide the right and the title over the subject property and that is not
within the scope of investigation in Crime No.4 of 2022. If the 2nd respondent feels
that the Settlement Deed executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd
respondent on 7.2.2007 is non-est in the eye of law, that document has to be
challenged before the competent Civil Court in the manner known to law. Without
undertaking such an exercise, a criminal Complaint has been given and the same is
now being investigated by the 1st respondent Police.
10.Even if the allegations made in the Complaint are taken as it is, no offence
of forgery or cheating is made out against the petitioners. The continuation of the
investigation by the 1st respondent Police will in fact lead to an abuse of process of
law and a case which is purely Civil in nature is attempted to be given a criminal
colour. In view of the same, the FIR registered by the 1st respondent Police is liable
to interfered by this Court . It is brought to the notice of this Court that the
Settlement Deed that was executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd
petitioner has now been cancelled by the District Registrar. This development does
not in any way help the continuation of the criminal investigation. Insofar as this
development is concerned, it is once again a matter of establishing the right and
title over the property and whichever party is aggrieved by the same, has to
workout their remedy before the Competent Authority/Civil Court. Looking at the
case from any angle, there is absolutely no criminality involved and the continuation
of criminal prosecution is a clear abuse of process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 of 10
11.In the light of the above discussion, the FIR in Crime No.4 of 2022,
pending on the file of the 1st respondent is hereby quashed and this criminal original
petition stands allowed. It is made abundantly clear that the inter se right between
the parties can be agitated before the appropriate forum and this order will not
come in the way of both the parties and the Authority/Court which deals with the
issue shall independently deal with the same on its own merits and in accordance
with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
KP
To
1.Inspector of Police
DCB Police Station
Krishnagiri.
2.Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 of 10
N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.
KP
Crl.O.P No.9914 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.5840 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
09.08.2023
