Madras High Court
Rajarathinam vs Durairaj on 8 September, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
Rajarathinam ... Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
1.Durairaj
2.Pandiyarajan
3.Kaliappan
4.Surulinathan
5.Dheenathayalan
6.Karuppaiya ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.126
of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (FAC),
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai
dated 08.01.2019 and allow this revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For R-2, R-3 & : Mr.S.Sivaprakash
R-4
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the
order passed in Crl.M.P.No.126 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special
Judicial Magistrate (FAC), Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land
Grabbing Cases, Madurai, dated 08.01.2019.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he filed a petition before
this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7214 of 2014 and based on the direction
given by this Court, his complaint was registered in Crime No.66/2014
for the offences under Section 420, 465 and 468 IPC and thereafter, the
said complaint was closed as 'mistake of fact'. The petitioner filed a
protest petition before the Special Court and the same was also dismissed
by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a private complaint in
Crl.M.P.No.126 of 2018 before the Special Court under Section 190 r/w
200 Cr.P.C and the same was also dismissed by the Trial Court. As
against the order passed by the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.126 of 2018
dated 08.01.2019, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
3. As per the complaint of the petitioner, the property situated in
Survey Nos.352/2, 353/1, 354/3 and 352/4 was enjoyed by the petitioner
as per the Will executed by his grandfather dated 28.11.2002. After the
demise of his grandfather, the petitioner was in possession of the
property. Thereafter, the respondents conspired and created a forged
Will dated 26.12.2006 and thereby, the petitioner preferred a complaint
as against the respondents.
4. Before the Trial Court, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined. On
examination of witnesses, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint under
Section 203 Cr.P.C by holding that the dispute narrated by the witnesses
are about the sale of property and not established about which documents
were forged.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
already the deceased T.K.Rathinasamy executed a registered Will dated
28.11.2002 in favour of the petitioner. The first respondent had filed a
suit in O.S.No.352/2009 as against the petitioner. In that suit, the
execution of the aforesaid Will dated 28.11.2002 was admitted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
first respondent and thereafter, the first respondent, namely, Durairaj,
along with the other respondents hatched conspiracy and created a forged
Will dated 26.12.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a suit in
O.S.No.119/2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nilakottai
and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court, the Will executed by T.K.Rathinasamy in favour of
the petitioner dated 28.11.2002 was a valid one and the Will created by
the first respondent dated 26.12.2006 was not proved. But the Special
Court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects and dismissed the
complaint.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 3 and 4
contended that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the police
have already registered the FIR in Crime No.66/2014 and the same was
closed as 'mistake of fact' and thereafter, the petitioner filed a protest
petition before the Special Court and the same was also dismissed. As
against the dismissal order, no appeal has been filed by the petitioner.
Per contra, the petitioner has filed a private complaint in Crl.M.P.No.126
of 2018 and the Trial Court has also correctly dismissed the petition,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
since there was no evidence to constitute the offence and hence, without
any material, the petition cannot be sustained.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondents 2, 3 and 4 and perused the materials
available on record.
8. It is an admitted fact that already civil suits were filed by both
the parties against the main accused, namely, Durairaj, who is said to
have created false and forged documents and he died pending the
proceedings. The main allegations are against the said Durairaj and the
respondents 2, 3 and 4 are the subsequent purchasers and they have no
nexus with the aforesaid creation of Will and they only purchased the
property based on the Will. The fifth respondent is the document writer
and the sixth respondent is the notary public, who also attested the
document.
9. Four witnesses were examined before the Trial Court. P.W.1, in
his evidence, stated that in the year 2013, Durairaj created forged
document and sold the property. P.W.2, in his evidence, had stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
the deceased Rathinasamy executed a Will in favour of his grandson and
not stated about any creation of forged documents. P.W.3 also, in his
evidence, stated that in the year 2007, based on the forged documents, 10
persons came to the land and threatened to vacate the premises and no
statement was made with regard to the creation of forged documents.
P.W.4 in his evidence stated that they are enjoying the property and in
the year 2013, Durairaj sold the property to one Pandiyarajan and the
said Pandiyarajan made quarrel with the petitioner. Therefore, the
statements made by the witnesses do not whisper about the alleged
forgery of Will. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence
produced on the side of the petitioner, correctly came to the conclusion
that there is no evidence to establish as to which document is forged one
and the statements of the witnesses only stated about the sale of the
property. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity to interfere
with the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision
Petition is dismissed.
08.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
To
The Special Judicial Magistrate (FAC),
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
Land Grabbing Cases,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
P. DHANABAL,J.
Lm
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.224 of 2019
08.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
