Madras High Court
R.Malaichamy vs The State Through on 23 September, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8011 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8011 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.4124 of 2021
1.R.Malaichamy
2.K.C.Jeeva ... Petitioners/A4 and A5
vs.
1.The State Through,
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime No.51/12 ... Respondent No.1/Complainant
2.Ramanathan ... Respondent No.2/Defacto complainant
Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.79 of 2015 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same against the
petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl. side) for R1
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8011 of 2021
ORDER
It is seen that the notice is ordered to the second
respondent/defacto complainant as early as on 18.06.2021 and even after
repeated attempts, no notice could be served on the second
respondent/defacto complainant. When the matter came up for hearing
before this court repeatedly, once again the Investigating Officer was
directed to trace out the defacto complainant. Already a report was filed by
the respondent police that inspite of their efforts, they could not trace out
the defacto complainant. Thereafter, one phone number was also said to be
given and that also could not be verified. Today also, the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. side) upon instructions submits that the
defacto complainant remains totally untraceable. It is under these
circumstances, the case is taken up for hearing on merits and is disposed of
by this judgment.
2.The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the charge sheet in
C.C.No.79 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai
with reference to the petitioners are concerned, who are the accused No.4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and 5. The primary ground on which the charge sheet is sought to be
quashed is that these petitioners, namely, the first petitioner is only the
power of attorney agent and the second petitioner is only the bonafide
purchaser of the said property. The second petitioner being the bonafide
purchaser filed a civil suit in O.S.No.1418 of 2015 on the file of the II
Additional Sub Court, Madurai (Camp at Thirumangalam) and in the said
suit, the defacto complainant/second respondent is the defendant. As
between them the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat on 13.02.2016, the
matter was amicably settled between the second petitioner and the second
respondent. The second respondent received a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
from the second petitioner and has relinquished all his right in respect of
the property. As such, no useful purpose will be served in proceeding
further with the case.
3.The copy of the said award of the Lok Adalat is also produced
before this Court. The following on the terms of settlement before the Lok
Adalat:
“ 1)jhth nrhj;Jk; thjpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;W ,e;j
gpujpthjpAk; xg;Gf;nfhz;L> thjpapd; jhth nrhj;jpd; mDgtj;jpy;
,e;j gpujpthjpNah mth; Ml;fNsh> mth; mjpfhuk; ngw;wth;fNsh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ve;j ,ilQ;rYk; nra;tJ ,y;iy vd;W gpujpthjp cWjp
$Wfpwhh;.
2)mjw;F gpujpgpujpNah[dkhf gpujpthjpAk; ,d;iwa
Njjpapy; thjpaplkpUe;J &.1>50>000/- f;F SBI fpis b.b.vz;.
757805 (Njjp: 02.02.2016) kw;Wk; &.1>50>000/- f;F kw;nwhU b.b.vz;.
7577806 (Njjp: 02.02.2016) SBI fpis Mf &.3>00>000/- (%d;W
yl;rk;) kl;Lk; ngw;Wf; nfhz;Ls;shh;. GpujpthjpAk; jd; jhahh;
kPdh ngahpy; jhth nrhj;J rk;ke;jg;gl;l 19.03.1987 Njjpapy;
mry; fpuag; gj;jpuj;ij thjpaplk; xg;gilj;Js;shh;.”
4.It can be seen that the allegations relating to impersonation are
made with reference to the accused No.1 to 3. After creating a document in
favor of the accused No.3 by impersonating, power of attorney was
executed in respect of A4 and A4 subsequently sold the property with
reference to A5. With reference to A4 and A5, it can be seen that the
defacto complainant has received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and relinquished
the right in the property. In view thereof, in view of the award of the Lok
Adalat, and in view of the fact that the defacto complainant itself
remaining untraceable, I am of the view that as far as the petitioners are
concerned, since the defacto complainant himself has received a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.3,00,000/- and relinquished his right with reference to the property, the
bonafides of the first and second petitioners remain proved and
accordingly, the proceedings with respect to the petitioners herein in
C.C.No.79 of 2015 is liable to be quashed.
5.Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.79 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Madurai stands quashed in as much as the petitioners are
concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.09.2024
NCC : Yes/No
sji
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Madurai DistricT.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
23.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
