Madras High Court
Neethi Rajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 April, 2025
CRL.OP(MD) No.22346 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CRL.OP(MD) No.22346 of 2024
and
CRL.MP(MD) No.13921 and 13923 of 2024
1. Neethi Rajan
2. Ramesh
3. Selvam ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
DCB Police Station,
Madurai City.
Crime No.41 of 2015.
2. Kumaran ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned final report in C.C.No.71 of 2017 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same as
illegal.
_____________
Page No. 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) No.22346 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Naresh Prabu
For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.R.Rajesh Kumar
for Mr.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the final
report in C.C.No.71 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Madurai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the property in S.No.95/2 to an
extent of 4 acres 7 cents situated at Sorikampatti Village, Karadikal,
Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai belongs to the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant. While so, he came to know through the encumbrance
certificate that, by forging the documents, Muthumayan executed a
settlement deed in favour of his sons, namely, Needhi Rajan, Alagarsamy,
Ramesh and Selvam with the help of document writer, namely, Durai by
cheating the Sub Registrar through the documents no.1144/2011,
1145/2011, 1146/2011 and 1147/2011. When the same was enquired with
the Sub Registrar, he came to know that without any parent documents,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
when the pattta was stands in the name of the 2nd respondent's father in
Patta No.1256, the above said settlement deed has been forged.
Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent and they
registered a case in Crime No.41 of 2015 for the offences under Sections
120(B), 406, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has
conducted an elaborate investigation and filed the final report and the
same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai in
C.C.No.71 of 2017 and same is pending. Now the petitioners, who are
arrayed as accused no.2, 4 and 5 have challenged the pending proceedings
through this petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the entire allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and
foisted one. They never involved in any criminal activities as alleged by
the defacto complainant. As per the prosecution case, the alleged property
in S.No.95/2 comprised in Patta No.1256 to an extent of 4 acres 7 cents
situated at Sorikampatti Village, Karadikal, Tirumangalam Taluk stands in
the name of 2nd respondent's father and the 1st accused conspired with his
sons, who are arrayed as accused no.2 to 5 and the 6th accused, who is the
document writer, executed a settlement deed in favour of his sons. For that
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
the case has been registered for the offences under Sections 120(B), 406,
468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Thereafter, the 1st respondent without
conducting a proper investigation has filed the final report and same has
been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in CC.No.71 of 2017 for the
offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. In fact, to
attract the above said provisions, no any materials available and there is
no entrustment of the property to the accused by the de facto complainant,
and there is no deception by the petitioners and they have not induced the
defacto complainant to deliver any property. The petitioners have not
executed any document and they are not signatory to any document.
Therefore, there are no materials to constitute the offences as against the
petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel would further submit that, in fact, the said
property belongs to one Manicka Thevar, who is the the petitioners distant
relative by ancestrally. In the year 1950, the said Manicka Thevar has
permitted the petitioners father to enjoy the property and he had been in
possession and enjoyment of the property. On 26.09.1973, the petitioners
father and one Sornammal entered into a sale agreement in respect of the
property and the same was cancelled later. In the year 1973, the same
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
property was mortgaged by the petitioners father to one Nesappan and the
same was also registered before the Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam. In the
meantime, 1st accused/father of the petitioners died. The settlement deed
is an unilateral one and the petitioners have also filed a suit in O.S.No.186
of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and the same
was dismissed by observing the property stands in the name of the said
Manicka Thevar. While so, the civil case has been converted in to a
criminal case by the defacto complainant. Therefore, the pending
proceedings are abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for
the 1st respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the
1st respondent, they registered a case in Crime No.41 of 2015 for the
offences under Section 120(B), 406, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Thereafter,
they conducted an elaborate investigation and filed the final report. As
per the final report, there are prima facie material available as against
these petitioners. The petitioners father executed a settlement deed in
favour of the petitioners, in which the petitioners father had no any right
over the property. In the meantime, the father of the petitioners died and
the petitioners knowing very well that the petitioners father had no any
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
right over the property and got settlement deed in their favour. Therefore,
it is a matter for trial and they have to face the trial and the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would
submit that originally the property in S.No.95/2 comprised in Patta No.
1256 of 2024 situated at Sorikampatti Village, Karadikal, Tirumangalam
Taluk, to an extent of 4.07 acres belongs to the 2nd respondent's father.
While so, the petitioners and their father with the connivance of the
document writer A-6 created a forged document and created the
settlement deed and thereby, they committed the offences. The 1 st
respondent after registration of F.I.R based on the complaint lodged by
the 2nd respondent has conducted an elaborate investigation and filed the
final report. As per the final report, there are prima facie material
available as against the petitioners and all the offences are borne out
through records. Therefore, it needs an elaborate trial. At this stage, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
8. The case of the prosecution is that the disputed property belongs
to the father of the 2nd respondent. While so, the father of the petitioners
without any rights over the property had executed a settlement deed in
favour of the petitioners and thereby, he lodged the complaint. Based on
the complaint, a case in Crime No.41 of 2015 for the offences under
Sections 120(B), 406, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Thereafter, the 1st
respondent has also conducted an investigation and filed the final report.
The said final report has been taken on file by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Madurai and the same is pending in CC.No.71 of 2017.
According to the petitioners, the property originally belongs to their
distant relative of the father of the petitioners was in possession and
enjoyment of the property for more than 50 year i.e.from the year 1950.
While so, the father of the petitioners executed settlement deed in their
favour and the petitioners have no knowledge about the settlement deed
and they are not signatory to the document and the said document is an
unilateral document. Therefore, mere execution of the document of their
father in favour of the petitioners no way constitute the offences.
9. This Court also perused the records. On a careful perusal of the
records, it is seen that there is a property dispute between the petitioners
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
and the 2nd respondent. According to the defacto complainant, the property
belongs to him. According to the petitioners, the petitioners father
executed the settlement deed. Therefore, the title has to be decided by the
competent Civil Court. Now the offences under Sections 120 (B), 406,
468, 471 and 420 of IPC are charged against the petitioners. In order to
attract the provisions of Section 120(B) IPC, there is no any piece of
material. As far as the offences under Section 406 of IPC is concerned, no
any property was entrusted to the petitioners that was misappropriated or
converted in their favour to attract the provisions under Section 406 of
IPC, constituting criminal breach of trust. As far as the Section 468 of
IPC is concerned, the petitioners are not the maker of the document and
the petitioners have not insisted the defacto complainant to deliver the
property to their favour and no any inducement made by them and the
defacto complainant is not a party to the document to attract the forgery.
As far as the Section 471 of IPC is concerned, once Section 468 of IPC is
not made out, Section 471 is also not made out. As far as the offences
under Section 420 is concerned, there is no averments to constitute the
offence and no any deception or any misleading representation or
dishonest concealment. Therefore, there are no ingredients to constitute
the offenses against the petitioners. Only because the settlement deed
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
executed in favour of the petitioners by their father, the offences would
not made out against the petitioners.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied the
following Judgments:
1. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in
(2009) 8 SCC 751.
2. D.Emmanuvel Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2022 (1) MLJ
(Crl.) 415.
3. K.Thulasingamoorthy and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu in
Crl.O.P.No.11477 of 2015 dated 06.05.2022.
4. N.Moorthy and another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu in
Crl.O.P.No.15614 of 2021 dated 21.06.2023 and
5. M.Sahayaselvi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in Crl.O.P(MD) No.
8633 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024.
11. On a careful perusal of the Judgments, it is clear that the
execution of a sale deed by a person purporting to convey a property
which is not his property, is not making a false document and therefore
not forgery and such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby
defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded,
that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the
fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser
under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. Further, a
charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person, who is not maker of the
document. For constituting the offence under Section 464 of IPC, it is
imperative that a false document is made, the accused person is a maker of
the same, otherwise, the accused person is not liable for the offence of
forgery.
12. In the case on hand also, the petitioners are not the makers of
the document and the settlement was executed by their father and the
defacto complainant is not a party to the document and being a third party
to the document cannot complain about the forgery and cheating.
Therefore, there are no sufficient materials to constitute the offences
under Sections 120(B), 406, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC as against the
petitioners and to proceed with the case further. Therefore, the pending
proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this criminal original
petition is allowed and the pending proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2017 on
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai is quashed as
against these petitioners. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
23.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Mac
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai
2. The Inspector of Police,
DCB Police Station,
Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
Mac
and
CRL.MP(MD) No.13921 and 13923 of 2024
23.04.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:08 pm )
