Madras High Court
M.Kaliyamurthy vs The State Rep. By on 16 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 11123 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.11123 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7360 & 7361 of 2025
M.Kaliyamurthy .... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
The Prevention of Land Grabbing,
Perambalur, Perambalur District.
Crime No.2 of 2012
2. K.Nallu .... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and
quash the charge sheet filed by the respondent police in C.C.No.251 of
2023 against the petitioner (A6) pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Perambalur.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvaraj
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
Crl.O.P.No. 11123 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.251 of 2023 pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Perambalur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent
purchased a Plot No.13, admeasuring 2808 sq.ft in Survey No.384/6,
situated at Elambalur Village, Perambalur District, by a registered sale
deed dated 12.12.1996 document No.2969 of 1996. The land originally
belonged to one Karumba Gounder, who sold it to Natesa Gounder.
After his demise, the property was enjoyed by his legal heirs, including
Muthusamy Gounder. On his demise, his wife Vasantha and their sons
Subramnaian and Dhanabal, appointed one Thayumanavar as their power
of attorney. The said Thayumanavar also obtained power from one
Thailammal and later sold the plot to the second respondent.
3. Subsequently, one Pachamuthu (A1) fraudulently created
a power of attorney executed by Thailammal. In fact, she had not
executed such a power. A1 impersonated Thailammal using another
woman, Pushpavalli @ Oppaiyee and obtained her thumb impression in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
the place of Thailammal and the same was registered. Based on the
power of attorney, A1 sold Plot No.13 to one Palanimuthu. Hence, the
complaint.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A6, who is working as
office assistant under A5/Sub Registrar. He further submitted that the
petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offences as alleged
by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2012 for the offences under Sections
120(B), 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as against the
petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.251 of
2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur. Hence he
prayed to quash the same.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would
submit that the trial has already been commenced and out of the ten listed
witnesses, four witnesses have been examined in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials placed on record.
7. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2012
for the offences under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 and
471 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed
final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.251 of
2023 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal
proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition.
8. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
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.
9. Fruther, 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. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
10. 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 consititue certain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
offences complained of. Further, 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 consititue 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.
11. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that
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.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.251 of 2023 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur. The petitioner is at liberty to
raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age of the
petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and
he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.
However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of
BNSS and at the time of passing judgment.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also
closed.
16.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Lpp
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Perambalur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
The Prevention of Land Grabbing,
Perambalur, Perambalur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
16.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
