Madras High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs State Represented By on 21 October, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL OP(MD). No.11749 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 21.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA
CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11749 of 2023
1.Vijayalakshmi
2.Rahaventhan
3.Manimegalai
4.Jeyaprakash
5.Palraj ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.
1,2,5,6&7
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Pandalgudi Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.68/2022) ...Respondent/Complainant
2.Mr.Gopalsamy ... Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the case FIR
in Crime No.68 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the
same.
For Petitioners :Mr.S.Ramasamy
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.11749 of 2023
For R1 :M/s.M.Aasha
Government Advocate
For R2 :Mr.K.Salai Arul Mani
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.68 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned
counsel for the second respondent.
3.The de-facto complainant/second respondent filed a private
complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate,
Aruppukottai in Cr.M.P.No.2037 of 2022 and the same was forwarded to
the first respondent. After receiving the same, the first respondent
registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2022 for the offences under Sections
465, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120B IPC.
4.The case of the prosecution is that on 29.11.2010 the second
respondent has purchased the property along with the first petitioner in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Survey No.14/8B measuring an extent of 53 cents situated at
Velayuthapuram Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District,
from one Victor for a sale consideration of Rs.31,80,000/-, for which, the
first petitioner paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and the second respondent
has a sum of Rs.11,80,000/- and the sale deed was registered in the name
of the first petitioner. It is further alleged that on the day of sale deed, the
second respondent entered share agreement with the first petitioner that
after selling the property, the amount shall be divided in two shares and
the original sale deed was with the second respondent. While so, the
second respondent asked the first petitioner to sell the property, but she
refused and demanded more share. Thereafter, she gave a complaint
before the first respondent that the original sale deed was found missing.
Thereafter, on 29.09.2021 in order to grab the aforesaid property, the first
petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the second petitioner, by
giving a false address. In the settlement deed, the fourth and fifth
petitioners signed as witnesses and the third petitioner prepared the
above said settlement deed. Hence, the second respondent gave a
complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.Except the first and second petitioners, all the other petitioners
are present before this Court. The de-facto complaint is also present. The
first and second petitioners are present virtually. A Joint Compromise
Memo is filed.
6.It is submitted on behalf the de-facto complainant that the case
can be closed and they are not willing to press the allegations.
7.Considering the nature of allegations in this case that with
reference to the purchase of property jointly by the de-facto complainant
and the accused and thereafter without giving the share of the de-facto
complainant, other documents have been created, the allegations being
private in nature between the parties, I am of the view that this Court
comes within the four corners of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, in the case of Gian Singh-vs-State of Punjab & Another
reported in 2012(10)SCC 303, and accordingly, I am inclined to exercise
the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The
Memorandum of Compromise shall form part of the order. The case in
Crime No.68 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police shall stand
quashed.
21.10.2024
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Pandalgudi Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J
NS
ORDER
IN
Date : 21/10/2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
