Madras High Court
Periasamy vs State Rep. By on 6 November, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19041 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19041 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.11771 of 2024
Periasamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
K.K. Nagar Police Station,
Trichy.
(Crime No.190 of 2021)
2.Joshpin Geetha,
Sub-Registrar (Incharge),
Sub Registrar Office,
K.Sathanoor,
Trichy. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to C.C.No.512 of 2023, on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, and quash the same insofar as the
petitioner concerned.
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19041 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Anbarasu
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner (A2) in C.C.No.512 of 2023, who is facing trial for the
offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 465, 471 and 420 I.P.C., has filed this quash
application.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been implicated as an accused in this case solely based on the
confession of the co-accused, and there is no direct evidence against the
petitioner. Furthermore, it was only an attempt. The de-facto complainant became
suspicious when a power of attorney document was to be registered, made
enquiries, and found that the Aadhaar details provided for the impersonated
person were false. The petitioner is said to have been prepared the Aadhaar Card
and other identity credentials for the impersonated person.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19041 of 2024
3. It is further submitted that apart from the confession of the co-
accused, there is no other material evidence against the petitioner. Further, relying
upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira Singh vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1952 SC 159, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the confession of an accused person against a co-
accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term. Further, the learned
counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in M.Rajendran
vs. The Inspector of Police and another [Crl.O.P.No.27206 of 2016, dated
16.08.2019], wherein this Court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kashmira Singh's case [cited supra], had held that a confession of a co-
accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantiate proof of evidence against
another co-accused and at the best, it can be used only to lend assurance to the
Court.
4. In this case, there is no material evidence available against the
petitioner except for the confession of the co-accused. The petitioner was not
present at the scene of the occurrence, nor was he arrested. No confession was
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19041 of 2024
obtained from him, and nothing was recovered. The prosecution against the
petitioner is being initiated solely on assumptions and presumptions.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, strongly
opposed the petitioner's contentions, stating that in the complaint, the de-facto
complainant had explicitly stated that the petitioner (A2) was present at the scene
of the occurrence along with A1. When the de-facto complainant began enquiring
about the forged documents, A1 and the petitioner (A2) fled the Office. The de-
facto complainant is none other than the Sub-Registrar, who has no personal
grievance against the petitioner.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that
totally, there are seven accused in this case. All the accused conspired together
and created forged documents. The specific role attributed to the petitioner is that
he is the kingpin, who produced the forged Aadhaar Card and other identity
credentials, and also arranged for individuals to execute the forged documents. In
this case, apart from the other offenses, the petitioner is also charged under
Section 120-B of the I.P.C. It is a well-established fact that conspiracy is often
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19041 of 2024
hatched in secrecy, and evidence of conspiracy is not always direct; it must be
inferred from the circumstances. This inference can only be drawn and confirmed
during the trial, not at this stage. He further submitted the petitioner has another
case in Crime No.49 of 2017 to his credit, which is being investigated by the City
Crime Branch, Trichy, and is also of a similar nature. This would also stare
against the petitioner's claim.
7. Considering the submissions and upon perusal of the materials, it is
evident that this is a case of conspiracy. The petitioner, along with the other
accused, is being prosecuted. The de-facto complainant, who is none other than
the Sub-Registrar, has no grievance against the petitioner. However, she became
suspicious of the documents presented for registration, and upon enquiry, found
that a forged document was attempted to be registered. All the accused have
participated in the offence, and the petitioner's contention can only be decided
during the trial, not at this stage. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.512 of 2023, pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.II, Trichy. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19041 of 2024
limited purpose of disposing of the above petition. The trial Court shall proceed
with the trial on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the
observations made herein. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
NCC : Yes / No 06.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To:-
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police,
K.K. Nagar Police Station,
Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19041 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19041 of 2024
06.11.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
