Madras High Court
Kamaraj vs State Rep.By on 2 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.9158 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.9158 of 2025
and
Crl.MP.Nos.6066 and 6069 of 2024
1.Kamaraj
2. Ayyadurai ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram.
(Cr.No.40 of 2014)
2. Babu @ Santharaman ... Respondents.
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS 2024, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.124/2023 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Ulundurpet and quash the
same in respect of the petitioner/1st and 2nd accused.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Vijaya Ragavan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
Crl.OP.No.9158 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.124 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I,
Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have
forged the signature of the brother of the second respondent and
created lease agreement dated 10.10.2003 in respect of land owned
by his father comprised in S.No.153/1A to an extent of of 2 acres and
62 cents situated at Sengurichi Village, Ulundurpet Taluk,
Villupuram District. When the second respondent went to the
agricultural land, the petitioners did not permit the second respondent
to enter into the said land and also threatened him with dire
consequence. Hence, the complaint.
3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first
respondent registered an FIR in Cr.No.40 of 2014 for the offences
punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468, 441, 506(ii) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the
same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.124 of
2023.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that both the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2. The petitioners
had lease deed from the brother of the second respondent vide lease
deed dated 10.10.2023. The petitioners are in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property on payment of Rs.2,00,0000/- as
lease amount (as Bokkiyam). After a period of ten years, the present
complaint was lodged as if the petitioners have trespassed into
subject property and encroached the same.
5. The learned counsel further submits that infact the
petitioners also filed a suit for injunction as against the second
respondent and his brother in O.S.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet. The said suit was decreed.
Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent has preferred an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
appeal in A.S.No.50 of 2024which is pending on the file of the
Appellate Court.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for
the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently
opposed to allow the petition.
7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
8. A perusal of the records reveals that though the petitioners
are in possession and enjoyment of subject property, the specific
allegations as against the petitioners is that the petitioners have
forged the signature of the second respondent's brother and created a
lease deed as if the subject land was leased out in their favour for a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, the brother of the second respondent is
not only the owner of the property, the second respondent being a
brother of the second respondent/person who entered into the lease
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
agreement is also having ½ share over the property. Therefore, there
are materials to attract the offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 465,
468, 441, 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioners. To quash the said
criminal proceeding, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh
Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019)
while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal
proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to
appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that
there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was
no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done
only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and
by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the
final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the
inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of
2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the
findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be
tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the
trial. Therefore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed
facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another
judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the
case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while
considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet,
the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the
evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether
there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the
ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. Further,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking
cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the
allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety,
would not constitute the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be
able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise
only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
12. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage whether
the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The
same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire
proceedings.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no
grounds to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.124 of 2023 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Ulundurpet. The
petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
Considering the age of the second petitioner, the personal appearance
of the second petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented
by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the
petitioner shall remain present before the Court at the time of
furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351
of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment. The trial Court is
directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of copy of this Order.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also
closed.
02.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Vv
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Ulundurpet
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
Vv
s
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 06:13:23 pm )
