Madras High Court
M.Sarojni vs S.Karthik Balaji on 15 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.5413 of 2021
1.M.Sarojni
2.Manickam @ Ayyasamy
3.M.Prabu
... Petitioners
Vs.
S.Karthik Balaji
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of the case in C.C.No.886
of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sidharthan
For Respondent : No Appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
ORDER
The petition is to quash the private complaint filed for the alleged
offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 468, 471 read with Section 511 IPC.
2.It is alleged in the private complaint that the petitioners were
tenants under the complainant; that the complainant had filed a suit
O.S.No.1759 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif,
Coimbatore and the learned Principal District Munsif had decreed the suit in
favour of the complainant; that the petitioners had neither handed over
possession nor paid the rent in terms of the decree; that while so, the
petitioners had obtained a patta in respect of the property by falsely
claiming title over the property; and that they had also filed a suit
O.S.No.2505 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif,
Coimbatore praying for a declaration of title and the said suit was dismissed
for default.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a
dispute with regard to the property between the petitioners and the
complainant. It is no doubt true that they are tenants under one portion of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
the property and the property claimed by the petitioners is different from the
property leased out to the petitioners. The proceedings are pending before
the Civil Court and hence the impugned complaint is nothing but an abuse
of process of law. The learned counsel further submitted that it is not
alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had forged any document or had
made any false representation to the complainant so as to attract the
offences under Sections 468 and 420 IPC. The learned counsel further
submitted that this case is covered by the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 - Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs.
State of Bihar and Another.
4.Though notice was sent and served on the respondent and the name
of the counsel is printed in the cause list, today when the matter is called
there is no representation for the respondent. There was no representation
for the respondent even on the earlier hearings (i.e;) on 21.04.2023 and on
08.06.2023.
5.This Court finds that the only allegation in the complaint is that the
petitioners were tenants in the property and thereafter, claimed title over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
property falsely. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in which
they were tenants is different from the property that they claimed. Be that as
it may. This Court finds that the facts of the case are squarely covered
by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 8
SCC 751 - Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and
Another. The relevant observations made in the said Judgment is extracted
hereunder for better understanding:-
“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.
18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an
offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
offence of “cheating” are as follows: (i) deception of a person
either by making a false or misleading representation or by
dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii)
fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any
person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do
or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is
likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.
20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property
claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser
under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him
by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently
induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case
the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the
purchaser is made a co-accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the
accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or
misleading representation or by any other action or omission,
nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or
dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the
retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the
first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing
the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused
by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second
accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser,
or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the
witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds,
deceived the complainant in any manner.”
6. The petitioners had admittedly not forged any document nor
cheated the de facto complainant. The allegation as stated earlier is that they
falsely claimed title to the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
7. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
this Court is inclined to quash the impugned complaint. Hence, the
impugned complaint is quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition
stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
15.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
shr
To,
The Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
shr
Crl.O.P.No.8204 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.5413 of 2021
15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
