Madras High Court
Jegadheesh vs The State Rep By on 2 April, 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.872 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.872 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.399 of 2021
1.Jegadheesh
2.Vanaja
3.Thamasraj
4.Sudhakaran ... Petitioner / Accused Nos.1 to 4
Vs.
1.The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Theni Police Station,
Theni District. ... Respondent/Complainant
2.Subburam ... 2nd Respondent/Defecto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet laid by the
respondents in C.C.No.4 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Theni, Theni District.
For petitioner : Mr.P.Sivachandran
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.872 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Theni, Theni District, against the petitioner herein.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent
is the owner of agricultural land comprised in S.Nos.29/6A & 29/6. He is
doing agricultural activities in the said land and also doing milk vendor
business by rearing cattle. He has obtained loan amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- from the Central Bank of India by mortgaging the said
land. The first petitioner herein, who is working as Assistant in a private
document writer office, stood as one of the witness to the above said
mortgage and made relationship with the second respondent. In such
circumstances, the petitioners approached the second respondent and
promised that they will obtain huge loan amount of Rs.10 lakhs from a
private bank in Theni by mortgaging his agricultural land. On believing
their words, he disclosed about the loan due before the Central Bank of
India. At that time, the loan due to be paid was Rs.1,96,000/-. The first
petitioner has agreed to pay the said amount on behalf of the second
respondent. Already, the second respondent has to pay a sum of
Rs.4 lakhs to the first petitioner for purchasing cattle from him and
already, there was oral agreement between them that out of loan amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of Rs.10 lakhs, except the amount to be paid to the first petitioner,
remaining amount will be given to the second respondent. Thereafter, the
first petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,96,000/- and redeemed the document
from the Central Bank of India. At that time, he also received 3 cheques
from the wife of the second respondent for the security purpose.
Thereafter, he got sign in the empty papers from the second respondent
for obtaining huge amount of loan. Thereafter, when the respondent
police came to the house of the second respondent for enquiry with
regard to the complaint about the missing document only, he came to
know about the alleged power of attorney and the execution of sale deed.
The first petitioner lodged the said complaint in the name of the second
petitioner. Further, the first petitioner with the help of other petitioners
registered the agricultural land of the defacto complainant in his mother's
favour by creating forged power of attorney. Thereby, the defacto
complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police and the
same was registered in Crime No.880 of 2018 for the offences punishable
under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC. After enquiry, the same was altered
into Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. The respondent
police conducted investigation and after completion of investigation,
filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Theni, Theni District,
and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.4 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Aggrieved against the same, present petition has been
filed.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and a false case has
been foisted against the petitioners. He further submitted that the
statement recorded from the defacto complainant under Section 161(3)
Cr.P.C., clearly stated that the alleged power of attorney was executed in
the presence of the Sub Registrar, Theni on the own will and volition of
the second respondent. The second respondent has to paid a sum of
Rs.5,96,000/- to the first petitioner towards the due arose an account of
purchase of cattle and on redemption of the mortgage with the Central
Bank of India. In order to settle the above said amount, the second
respondent executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the first
petitioner. Hence, there is no offence made out by the petitioners as
alleged by the second respondent and hence, the charge sheet filed
against the petitioners is clear abuse of process of law and the same is
liable to be quashed and prayed for allowing this petition.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
would contend that in order to obtain an additional loan amount of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.10 lakhs from the private bank in Theni, the second respondent signed
in the empty papers given by the first petitioner. Thereafter, he came to
know about the forged power of attorney dated 28.05.2018 and execution
of sale deed in favour of the second petitioner, who is the mother of the
first petitioner dated 01.06.2018. Subsequently, he cancelled the said
Power Deed on 11.09.2018 and lodged a complaint before the respondent
police. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State submitted that in the alleged power of attorney dated
28.05.2018, there is no mentioning about the loan transaction, other debts
and the sale of property between the second respondent and the first
petitioner. The first petitioner executed a sale deed to his mother namely,
the second petitioner for an under valued amount of Rs.1,96,000/-. The
second respondent has executed the power of attorney only for the
purpose of obtaining an additional loan of Rs.10 lakhs. However, the first
petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the second petitioner. The
petitioners 3 & 4 were stood as witnesses to the sale deed dated
01.06.2018. Further, the first petitioner lodged a complaint before the
police in the name of the second respondent as if the original document
was found missing. Hence, there is specific allegation against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioners. He would further submitted that already trial was commenced
and 11 witnesses were examined. At this stage, this petition cannot be
entertained. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the second respondent and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
8.From the perusal of power of attorney, it shows that there
is no mentioning about the sale of property. It is clearly mentioned that
the first petitioner has to maintain the property and could not make any
encumbrance. However, the first petitioner sold the property to his
mother immediately after the power of attorney. The date of power of
attorney is 28.05.2018. The date of execution of sale deed in favour of
the second petitioner is 01.06.2018. So, it creates some suspicious.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.
9. In view of the same, this Court finds no ground or scope
to quash C.C.No.4 of 2020, pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Theni, Theni District. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed. However, learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, Theni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
District. is directed to complete the trial proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2020
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that this Court may consider to dispense with the personal
appearance of the petitioners before the court below. Taking into
consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the appearance of the petitioners before the trial court is
dispensed with except for their appearance for the purpose of receiving
the copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges,
questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment
is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence
of the petitioners are necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct
their appearance on those days.
02.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
dss
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Theni, Theni District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Theni Police Station,
Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
and
02.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
