Madras High Court
Arputhavalli vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 April, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1969 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CRL. OP(MD). No.1969 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1349 of 2025
Arputhavalli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Virudhunagar District
2. J. Saravanakumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to
call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.
10 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same
against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
No.1 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
No.2 : Mr.D.Dhana Chandra Prakash
_____________
Page No. 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:25:45 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1969 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2024 on the file of the first
respondent police.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the second respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner
and others before the first respondent a case has been registered in Crime
No.10 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 120(b),420, 465, 468, 471,
294(b) and 506(2) of IPC and this petitioner was arrayed as seventh
accused in this case. Infact this petitioner was arrayed as accused on the
ground that he is a document writer. As per the case of prosecution the
properties in S.No. 2/1,1/5,1/6,6/1,2/2,6/2,6/3,7/2,1/1,1/2A,1/2B,1/3, 1/4,
3/2, 7/1 at Ammapatti Village , Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District to an
extent of 27 acres and 70 cents and the said land belongs to M/s.IVR
Prime Developers(Arakku) Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. Two
properties were purchased through power agent of the company namely
N.S.Mani on various dates . The defacto complainant decided to purchase
the property @ Rs.3,10,000/- per acre and paid a sum of Rs.85,87,000/- to
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:25:45 pm )
the above said persons and additionally paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
toward registration charges totally Rs.91,87,000/- was paid and obtained
two sale deeds on 05.02.2024 and 23.02.2024 respectively. At the time of
registration the property documents were not given to the defacto
complainant by A3 to A5. Later the defacto complainant came to know
that the private company did not give any power to N.S.Mani and the
power of attorney deed was created. Hence he lodged a complaint and
based on the same, the First Information Report has been registered . This
petitioner was arrayed as seventh accused and she was a document writer.
Inface this petitioner is not aware of the document whether it was original
or fake. Therefore only with malafide intention the petitioner has been
arrayed as one of the accused in this case, thereby the registration of the
First Information Report is abuse of process of law and the same is liable
to be quashed.
3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent would submit that based on the complaint given by the
second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.10
of 2024 for the offences under Sections 120(b),420, 465, 468, 471, 294(b)
and 506(2) of IPC and the case is under investigation and at this stage the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:25:45 pm )
First Information Report cannot be quashed and hence petition is liable to
be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that the petitioner along with others conspired together and
created forged power of attorney deed. Thereafter the first accused along
with other have sold the property to the defacto complainant by
suppressing material facts and without any title they cheated the defacto
complainant to the tune of Rs.91,87,000/- and thereby he lodged a
complaint and a case has been registered and the investigation is pending.
The registering authority and the document writer colluded with the other
accused and registered the documents, therefore it needs elaborate
investigation and therefore petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. As per the case of prosecution the A1 to A5 cheated the defacto
complainant by executing sale deed without any title over the property
and same was registered by the sixth accused and this petitioner is only a
document writer. Without verifying the documents all the accused
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:25:45 pm )
conspired together and cheated the defacto complainant. This petitioner
only prepared document and presented documents for registration. Apart
from that there is no any criminal act done by her and she has no intention
to cheat the defacto complainant.
7. This Court carefully perused all the materials. On perusal of the
First Information Report and other records it is seen in the last line of the
complaint and the First Information Report wherein the defacto
complainant stated that A1 to A5 conspired together with the Sub
Registrar and document writer abetted to commit the offence. Apart from
this there is no allegation as against this petitioner. Therefore without any
material including the name of the petitioner in the First Information
Report and without any specific allegation, registering the First
Information Report is abuse of process of law. There are no averments to
constitute the offence as per the First Information Report, therefore the
pending First Information Report is liable to be quashed as against this
petitioner.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relied
on the following judgments:
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:25:45 pm )
a) Kaptan Singh .vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others in
b)Shekhar .vs.The State of Karnataka but its Doddaballapura Town
Police Station, Bengalaru District, Rep. by High Court SPP, Bengaluru
and another
9. On careful perusal of the above said judgments they will not be
applicable to the present facts of the case. In the case on hand there is no
any allegation in the First Information Report to constitute the offence as
against this petitioner.
10. In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2024 on the
file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed as against this
petitioner. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
17.04.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
aav
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:25:45 pm )
To
1. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Virudhunagar District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:25:45 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
17.04.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:25:45 pm )
