Senthilkumar vs State Rep. By
2023 Latest Caselaw 8021 Mad

                                                                             Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                       DATED: 11.07.2023

                                                              CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                              Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019


                 Senthilkumar                                                     ...Petitioner

                                                         Vs

                 1.State Rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Pudukkottai Town Police Station,
                   Pudukkottai District.
                   In Cr. No.234 of 2015

                 2.Thenmozhi                                                      ...Respondents

                 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                 Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records pertaining to the
                 impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.174 of 2019 pending on the learned Judicial
                 Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai and quash the same as illegal in so far as the
                 petitioner's concern.
                                  For Petitioner                : Mr.G.Mathavan
                                  For 1st Respondent            : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                                  Additional Public Prosecutor
                                  For 2nd Respondent             : Mr.T.Leninkumar

                                                              ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.174 of 2019,

pending on the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

2.According to the petitioner, the second respondent has lodged a

complaint alleging that A1 issued a legal notice through the petitioner dated

20.09.2014, alleging that the Marsraja entered into sale agreement with the

defacto complainant and executed a deed dated 30.06.2012 for a sale of Rs.

30,00,000/-, on receipt of Rs.25,00,000/- as advance. Further it is alleged that

the second respondent never received amount from A1 and she had not

executed any agreement of sale and the alleged sale agreement is a forged one

and the second respondent also issued a reply requesting the petitioner to send

a copy of the sale agreement. The petitioner also sent a letter dated 07.10.2014

along with copy of the sale agreement dated 30.06.2012 but it was alleged that

the petitioner send only three empty white papers as if he sent the xerox copy

of the sale agreement. Hence on assumption, A1 along with the petitioner

created a forged document and filed the case against the second respondent

for which the complaint lodged by the second respondent. Initially it was

enquired and closed as 'mistake of fact'. Thereafter, the petitioner approached

this Court for registration of FIR in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9077 of 2015. On the

strength of the order, a case was registered against the petitioner for the

offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.

3.In fact the petitioner is practicing as an advocate in Pudukkottai

District and alleged legal notice was issued on 20.09.2014. Thereafter, the suit

was filed before the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai for the relief https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

of specific performance in O.S.No.54 of 2014 on 17.10.2014. But the

aforesaid complaint was lodged by the second respondent on 29.04.2015 after

eight months delay. In fact at the time of posting the letter dated 07.10.2014,

the petitioner enclosed a copy of the sale agreement. In order to create defence

case in the suit, the second respondent used his influence and registered a

false case against the petitioner.

4.The veracity of the sale agreement is to be decided by the civil Court,

which is pending. Without approaching the competent civil Court, the second

respondent attempted to give criminal color to civil dispute by lodging the

present complaint. The first respondent also without proper enquiry and

without perusing the materials, registered the case and filed a final report for

the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC. Hence, the impugned

charge sheet is liable to be set aside.

5.The second respondent has filed a counter stating that she received a

notice dated 20.09.2014 from the petitioner on 30.06.2012 stating that she

entered into sale agreement with one Marsraja to sell the property for a sum of

Rs.39,00,000/-, on receipt of Rs.25,00,000/- as advance. She was shocked and

surprised on seeing the notice as she never entered into agreement with any

one. Immediately after receipt of the said notice, she sent a reply notice to the

petitioner alleged that she never executed any agreement with Marsraja and if https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

at all the said Marsraja possess any agreement, it was not executed by her. It

was a forged one. Hence, she requested the petitioner to send so called

agreement. The petitioner sent a postal cover dated 07.10.2014 containing

handwritten letter and three blank white papers.

6.From the attitude of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner

being an advocate colluded with Marsraja and fabricated the said agreement

with an intention to grab her property. Thereafter on 13.10.2014, she sent a

rejoinder of the petitioner calling upon him to sent the said fabricated

agreement. In turn the petitioner sent a reply on 18.10.2014, as if he already

sent the agreement and he never sent any white papers.

7.Since the contention of the notice is not at all true, she sent reply

notice dated 08.11.2014 calling upon the petitioner once again to send the

fabricated agreement. Having receipt of reply notice, the petitioner did not

come forward to send any rejoinder. As the petitioner and the said Marsraja

committed the offence of forgery with an intention to cheat her on 12.11.2014,

she filed complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District,

Pudukkottai. On 02.12.2014, in view of the summons issued by District Crime

Branch, she appeared before them and narrated the entire history. Thereafter,

the said complaint was forwarded to the first respondent and the first

respondent without conducting any enquiry closed the complaint. The first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

respondent closed the complaint and directed her to work out the remedy

before the civil Court. While facts are being so, she received a notice dated

29.10.2014, from the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai that the said

Marsraja filed a civil suit in O.S.No.54 of 2014.

8.Since the first respondent and the District Crime Branch by acting

hand in glove of the petitioner and thereby, closed the complaint. In view of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court held that if a

document produced before the civil Court is a forged one, the affected party

can very well make a complaint before the concerned police station. This is

not a case of pure civil in nature. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent

also contended that the based on the direction of this Court, only the FIR has

been registered and the Police also investigated the matter and prima facie

offence is made out against all the accused and now the case is pending for

further proceedings.

10.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

11.It is admitted by both the parties that civil suit is pending before the

Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, in respect of disputed agreement dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

30.06.2012. The petitioner has produced the copy of alleged forged

agreement.

12.A perusal of the agreement, it reveals that this petitioner is neither

party nor any attesting witness or scribe. The main contention of the second

respondent is that the petitioner being an advocate while sending copy of the

agreement without sending the agreement, he only sent three blank white

papers and thereby, he colluded with the other accused and created the forged

document. Apart from this, there is no allegation made against the petitioner

in the complaint. The civil suit is pending between the Ist accused and second

respondent. Mere allegation that this petitioner being an advocate had sent

three blank white papers instead of sending the copy of the agreement alone is

not sufficient to constitute the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of

IPC as alleged in the final report. Further from the available records, it is

found that already a complaint was given before the police and the same was

closed by the police and they advised to go to civil Court. Thereafter, the

second respondent filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9077 of 2015 and based on the

direction of this Court, only the present case was filed.

13.Even according to the final report, there is no specific allegation as

against the petitioner and the allegation is that in order to cheat the witness

Thenmozhi, A1 and A2 forged the sale agreement and without sending the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

copy of the document, they sent merely blank white papers. Further the said

agreement itself pending before the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai for

adjudication. Even according to the prosecution, the said agreement was

forged one but there is no material as against this petitioner to involve in the

said occurrence. Therefore, the available materials are not sufficient to prove

the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The implication of the

petitioner who is practicing as an advocate and his primary duty is to advice

his clients and to act as instructed by clients is a pure abuse of the process of

law. In view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to quash the

charges as against the petitioner and the same is quashed.

14.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent represented that the case is pending for more than five years.

Already interim stay was granted and thereby delay in trial proceedings and

hence, he sought for a direction for speedy trial in respect of remaining

accused.

15.Considering the nature and circumstances of the case and

considering that the case is pending from the year 2019, it is appropriate to

direct the trial Court to dispose of the case within a stipulated time. The

learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai, shall endeavour to expedite the

trial process and complete the trial within a period of six months from the date https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

P. DHANABAL,J.

Mrn

of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Magistrate has to pass order

without influencing any observation made by this Court.

16.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the

charge sheet in C.C.No.174 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai as against the petitioner alone is quashed.

11.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Mrn

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai

2.The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Town Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.O.P(MD).No.16970 of 2019

11.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis