Madras High Court
T.Subbulakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.No.9394 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.9394 of 2025 and
Crl.MP.Nos.6281 & 6220 of 2025
T.Subbulakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch (CCB), Land Grabbing Wing,
Chennai 600 007
(Cr.No.315 of 2012)
2.Upendra Mothilal Dalal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to call for the records in CC.No.113 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Alandur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Shanmugasundaram,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Manuraj
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
For R2 : No Appearance
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
CRL.O.P.No.9394 of 2025
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been been filed to quash
the proceedings in CC.No.113 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-I, Alandur.
2. Mr.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted that there are totally four accused, in which the
petitioner is arrayed as A1. The second respondent lodged complaint on
29.05.2012 and on receipt of the same, the first respondent registered FIR in
Cr.No.315 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 419, 467, 471, 420 of IPC
read with 120 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent
laid final report for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 417, 419, 465,
467, 468, 471, 447 read with 120(b) of IPC read with 34 of IPC and offences
under Sections 82 (c) & (d) of Registration Act, 1908 and the same has been
taken cognizance by the trial court. The second respondent lodged complaint
alleging that the disputed property originally belonged to one Chokkalingam
and he executed power of attorney in favour of one, Ganesan on 28.01.1967.
The power of attorney sold the said property to one, Mothilal Karsondas Dalal
and his brother Gunvant Karsondas Dalal vide document No.428 of 1967 with
the Office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, Chennai. Both died and after their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
demise, the disputed property devolved on their legal heirs. While being so, the
fourth accused is a high rank police officer, and also a very influencial person
and by utilising his official position, the first accused fraudulently and
dishonestly concealed the identity of the second accused, by using forged and
fabricated power of attorney, executed a power of attorney in favour of the
second accused, as if the original owners have executed the same in favour of
the second accused. In turn, the power of attorney namely the second accused
had executed sale deed in favour of A3 on 05.06.2007 by document No.3388 of
2007. It was further alleged that in the said sale deed, A2 has furnished address
in the recital of the sale deed, but in the photo identification column, she has
mentioned different address. The Sub Registrar who registered the sale deed,
so as to oblige and satisfy some higher officials, without even noticing that the
executant has two addresses and incorrect documents of previous sale deed, has
registered the sale deed in favour of the third accused. Thereafter with the
connivance of the petitioner, rectification deed was executed in favour of the
third accused on 07.10.2007 registered as document No.6087 of 2007 at the
Office of the Sub Registrar at Neelangarai, Chennai.
2.1 He further submitted that even in the year 2007, the second
respondent noticed that in the disputed property, the third accused constructed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
building and obtained electricity connection in her name and also rented it out
to third party and is collecting rent. Even then, the second respondent did not
lodge any complaint. In the year 2010, all the legal heirs represented by one
person along with the second respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No.873 of
2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur for declaration declaring
the power of attorney executed in favour of the second accused and the sale
deed executed in favour of the third accused are null and void and also
consequential injunction restraining the accused 2 and 3 from further
developing or putting up the superstructure over the disputed property and also
for mandatory injunction restraining the second and third accused from
encumbering the said property by mortgage or creating charge over the
property. The learned District Munsif, Alandur was pleased to dismiss the
injunction petition and the suit is pending for trial. In the plaint, it was stated in
the cause of action column as if the complaint was already lodged before the
Commissioner of Police on 19.01.2010 and the same was forwarded to the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thorapakkam and thereafter no action has
been taken by them. Though the same was stated in the cause of action
column, no document is filed to show that the second respondent lodged
complaint on 19.01.2010. After a period of two years from the date of filing
the suit, the present impugned complaint has been filed on 29.05.2012 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
registered the same in Cr.No.315 of 2012. In fact, in the said complaint also,
there is absolutely no whisper about the earlier complaint lodged by the second
respondent before the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, the second
respondent, having been failed before the Civil Court to obtain any interim
injunction as against the accused persons, has now given criminal colour to a
civil dispute with false allegations. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the
entire proceedings.
2.2 He further submitted that the present complaint is a clear
abuse of process of law since it is the second complaint, that too without
mentioning the earlier complaint lodged by the complainant. The legal heirs of
the deceased, original owners of the property have already filed suit in
O.S.No.873 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur and after
a period of two years from the date of the suit, the present impugned complaint
has been lodged as against the petitioner and others. Even according to the case
of the prosecution, no cognizable offence is made out as against the petitioner
and there is absolutely no material to attract those offences.
2.3 He further submitted that even according to the second
respondent, after the demise of the original owners of the property, the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
accused fabricated power of attorney in her favour impersonating the original
owner of the property and registered the same vide document No.211 of 2007
at the Office of the Joint Sub Registrar-III, Trichy. On the strength of the said
power of attorney, A2 executed a sale deed on 05.06.2007 vide registered
document No.3388 of 2007 at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Neelangarai,
Chennai. Thereafter, the second accused executed a rectification deed
07.12.2007 in favour of the third accused vide registered document No.6087 of
2007 at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai. The fourth
accused misused his official position and influenced the Sub Registrar and
registered document in favour of A3. Thereafter the petitioner along with the
third and fourth accused has constructed a building and has obtained electricity
connection in the name of the third accused and has let out the said premises to
Renault-Nissan Technology & Business Centre India Private Limited and is
receiving monthly rent of Rs.1,53,000/-. He further submitted that though the
second respondent came to the knowledge understand that the power of
attorney and the sale deed is executed in favour of the third accused after
receipt of the encumbrance certificate, she did not lodge any complaint. After a
period of five years, the present complaint has been filed that too after filing the
suit in the year 2010. The said complaint was mechanically registered by the
first respondent and the final report was also filed without any material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
evidence to attract those offences as against the petitioner. Therefore, the entire
proceedings are a clear abuse of process of court and it is liable to be quashed.
He further submitted that even according to the prosecution, the original
impersonator was not being added as an accused. Hence, the impugned final
report itself is incomplete and therefore the investigation itself is not completed
and few more accused persons are to be traced. Therefore, he prayed for the
quashment of the entire proceedings.
3. Per contra, Mr.R.Vinothraja, the learned Government
Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the second
respondent's father and his brother purchased the disputed property by the
registered sale deed dated 28.01.1967 vide document No.428 of 1967. After
their demise, the legal heirs visited the property in the month of September
2008 and reported that some unknown person was constructing building in the
said property. On verification of the encumbrance certificate 01.11.2008 from
the Registrar of Neelangarai Registrar Office found that the sale deed was
executed in favour of the third accused on the strength of the power of attorney
by power holder namely the second accused. Even after their demise in the
year 1981 and 1993, the second accused by impersonating them with the help
of the petitioner, executed the power of attorney in favour of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
accused dated 12.04.2007 and the same was registered at the Office of the Joint
Sub Registrar No.3 Trichy vide document No.211 of 2007. Thereafter, the
second accused Tamilarasi impersonated as Dhanalakshmi, opened a savings
bank account at Indian Bank, Thambu Chetty street, Chennai and executed a
sale deed in favour of the third accused on 05.06.2007 vide registered
document No.3388 of 2007 with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Neelangarai,
Chennai. The second accused impersonated Dhanalakshmi, on the strength of
the said power of attorney, executed a rectification deed in favour of the third
accused on 07.12.2007 vide document No.6087 of 2007 at the Office of the Sub
Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai. He further submitted that the petitioner being
the wife of the fourth accused cheated the second respondent and grabbed the
property and also constructed building by obtaining electricity service
connection in the name of the third accused. The entire building has been let
out to one, Renault-Nissan Technology & Business Centre India Private
Limited and a rent of Rs.1,53,000/- per month is being received. The
petitioner, mother of the third accused with active cooperation with all the other
accused persons have dishonestly and fraudulently fabricated fake document
with malafide intention to grab the property that belongs to the second
respondent herein. He further submitted that the second accused had taken
precautions to conceal her identity with the view to grab the entire property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
being willfully aware that Dhanalakshmi is pseudonym of Tamilarasi, had
executed a sale deed in favour of the third accused. During the said purchase,
the third accused played a vital role in the execution of sale process by abusing
his official position. He also relied upon the following judgments:
(i) State of Madhya Praesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and Ors
reported in MANU/SC/0117/2020, wherein the Hon'ble Surpeme Court of India
has held as follows:
We find that the High Court has examined the entire issue
as to whether the offence Under Sections 420 and 120-B is made
out or not at pre trial stage. The Respondents are beneficiary of
the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the President
of the Bank. The power Under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where the
allegations are required to be proved in court of law.
(ii) M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Menakshi and Ors reported in
MANU/SC/1866/2019, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as
follows:
It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority
for the proposition that while invoking the power Under Section
482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a complaint or a
charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the
validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form
the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences
complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether
the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been
complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained
in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute
the offence alleged.
Unfortunately, the High Court put the cart before the horse
and held that the Appellant had not produced any evidence to
prove the entry in the Government Gazette though it is a relevant
fact Under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Much before
the case could reach the stage of trial, the High Court shut the
door for the Appellant and pre-concluded the issue as though
there was no evidence at all. This is completely contrary to law.
As such, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petitions.
4. Heard, Mr.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vinothraja, the learned Government
Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent. Though notice was served
on the second respondent, no one appeared on behalf of the second respondent
by person or through pleader.
5. It is seen that this Court already quashed the impugned
proceedings as against A3 & A4 in Crl.OP.Nos.13791 & 2880 of 2020 dated
29.09.2020, and the relevant findings of this Court is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
“6. There are totally four accused, in which the
petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4. A1 is the wife of the
fourth accused and A3 is the daughter of A1 and A4. The case
of the prosecution is that the property situated at 189,
Sholinganallur Village, “The Seashore Town”, Tambaram
Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in survey No.12/1 and
survey No.12/349 admeasuring 12,000 sq.ft. originally
belonged to one Chokkalinga Mudaliar's family. All the family
members executed power of attorney in favour of one, Ganesan
on 28.01.1967. On the strength of the power of attorney, the
power holder Mr.Ganesan executed sale deed in favour of
Mothilal Karsondas Dala and his brother Gunvantlal
Karsondas Dalal vide document No.428 of 1967 at the Office of
the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, Chennai. Both were died on
24.09.1981 and 10.02.1993. After their demise, the legal heirs
of the deceased decided to develop the said property. In the
month of September 2008, they visited the property and found
that third persons are constructing building. On verification
from the encumbrance certificate the second respondent found
that the second accused impersonated their fathers who died
even in the year 1981 and 1993, executed power of attorney in
favour of the second accused with the influence of the first
accused. In turn, the second accused mentioned two addresses
in the sale deed and executed in favour of the third accused on
05.06.2007 by the sale deed vide document No.3388 of 2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
Further alleged that A2 impersonated Dhanalakshmi and using
the said forged power of attorney executed a rectification deed
in favour of the third accused on 07.12.2007 vide document
No.6087 of 2007 with the Office of Sub Registrar, Neelangarai,
Chennai. The fourth accused misused his official position and
coerced his camp office driver to go to Sub Registrar Office and
assisted the first accused. Thereafter the first accused cheated
the second respondent, grabbed the entire property and also
constructed building. Thereafter electricity service connection
was obtained in the name of the third accused and let out entire
premises to Renault-Nissan Technology & Business Centre
India Private Limited for the monthly rent of Rs.1,53,000/-.
Also she received a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- as advance for the
said premises. The monthly rent was deposited in the third
accused account. After completion of the investigation, the first
respondent laid final report as against A1 to A4 for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 417, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471,
447 read with 120(b) of IPC read with 34 of IPC and offences
under Sections 82 (c) & (d) of Registration Act, 1908
7. On careful perusal of records revealed that
in the month of September 2010, the second respondent came to
understand that the disputed property was registered in favour
of the third accused by the second accused on the strength of
power of attorney dated 12.04.2007 registered vide document
No.211 of 2007. Further the accused 1, 3 and 4 have put up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
construction on the disputed property and also obtained
electricity service connection in the name of the third accused.
Even then, the second respondent did not lodge any complaint
before any of the police authority. In the year 2010 the second
respondent and other legal heirs have filed suit in O.S.No.873
of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur,
Chennai for declaration declaring that the power of attorney
executed in favour of the second accused and the sale deed
executed in favour of the third accused are null and void. They
also prayed for mandatory injunction to remove the
construction put up by them and restraining the accused
persons from creating further encumbrance over the disputed
property. Injunction application filed by the second respondent
herein was dismissed by the trial court and the trial is pending
in the main suit. After two years from the date of filing the suit
in the year 2012, namely on 29.05.2012, the second respondent
lodged complaint before the Commissioner of Police and the
same was forwarded to the file of the first respondent and
registered FIR in Crime No.315 of 2012.
8. On perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.873 of
2010 in paragraph 9 that the defacto complaint lodged
complaint before the Commissioner of Police on 19.01.2000
and the same was forwarded to the file of the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Thoraipakkam. Even then, no action
has been taken since defendants are highly influential persons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
Though the second respondent attached the copy of the
complaint dated 19.01.2010 in the plaint, there is no proof of
acknowledgment for the said complaint by the Commissioner of
Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police. Therefore, after
period of four years from the date of knowledge, the present
complaint has been lodged by the second respondent that too
after filing suit for declaration and also failed to obtain
injunction as against the accused persons. The FIR has been
registered on 29.05.2012 and the first respondent filed final
report only on 08.11.2018, there is absolutely no explanation
for delay in filing final report. After filing the final report, trial
court has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 109,
417, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447 read with 120(b) of IPC read
with 34 of IPC and offences under Sections 82 (c) & (d) of
Registration Act, 1908 as against A1 to A4 in CC.No.113 of
2019.
9. That apart, the first respondent stated in the
final report that the impersonation of two persons are yet to be
traced out and after identifying them, separate final report will
be filed as against them. As rightly pointed out by the learned
Senior Counsels, the present final report is incompleted one and
even after period of six years from the date of registration of
FIR, the first respondent could not able to find out the
impersonators and mechanically filed final report. The sale
deed had been executed in favour of the third accused for valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
sale consideration. After purchasing the disputed property by
the third accused, put up construction and also obtained
electricity service connection in her name. Though the
prosecution alleged that A1, A3 and A4 with malafide intention
to grab the property created fake documents they have
dishonestly and fraudulently fabricated the above fake
documents with malafide intention to grab the property.
Further alleged that the fourth accused was being hold higher
post in Police Department had played vital role in execution of
sale process by abusing his official position. No one has spoken
about his involvement in the alleged crime. Admittedly the
general power of attorney and the sale deed have been
registered before the Registrar Office vide document Nos.211 of
2007 and 3388 of 2007. Therefore, there is no question of
fabrication of those documents by accused persons. According
to the prosecution, the original owners of the property have
been impersonated by two other persons and the first
respondent yet to trace out them. Therefore, the third accused
being purchaser of the property did not know about the power
of attorney executed in favour of the second accused.
10. Further on perusal of LW10, Khaja Hussain
was being driver of the fourth accused had driven the car for
the first accused to Sub Registrar Office on several times. It
would not amount to any offence committed by the fourth
accused. LW10 was being the driver of the fourth accused, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
had driven the car. LW11, the brother of the fourth accused
herein stated that the fourth accused handed over the copy of
the document related to the disputed property and on his
instruction, he kept the same in safe custody. Even according to
him, all the documents are copies of the original documents and
the fourth accused never entrusted original documents with
LW11. Even assuming that the fourth accused entrusted copies
of the document with the hands of LW11, that would not amount
to any offence, since the certified copies of the power of
attorney and the sale deed were produced before the first
respondent. Further, LW26, a Police Constable served under
the fourth accused stated that the fourth accused contacted one
Ravi and instructed him to cancel the document in respect of the
disputed property. He is only hear say evidence and he heard
that the fourth accused had spoken through phone to one,
Mr.Ravi. It is absolutely unbelievable to allege that the fourth
accused also involved in this crime. Insofar as the statement of
LW28, the Sub Registrar of Neelangarai is concerned, he stated
that the fourth accused called him to his Office and forced him
to cancel the registration of document. On perusal of the
statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C, LW28
revealed that he was working as Sub Registrar from 24.07.2006
to 31.08.2009 at the Sub Registrar Office, Neelangarai. On
08.09.2008 he registered agreement for sale vide document
No.3679 of 2008 through the power agent of Chandresh
M.Kampani one, Mr.Ravi in favour of M.Rajaya. Thereafter in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
the month of March 2010, the first accused phoned him and
threatened to cancel the said agreement for sale when already
the said property was sold out in favour of A3. Thereafter the
fourth accused also called him at his Office and compelled him
to cancel the document.
11. It is curious to note that when LW28 was
working from 24.07.2006 to 31.08.2009 at the Office of the Sub
Registrar, Neelangarai, in the month of March 2010, he was
working at some other Office and as such, the accused persons
would not have compelled him to cancel that document. That
apart, it would not amount to any offence since the present
complaint is that all the accused persons have conspired
together and impersonated the original owners of the property
and executed power of attorney in favour of the second accused
and in turn she executed sale deed in favour of the third
accused. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to produce
materials to attract those offences as against the petitioners
herein. Under these circumstances, the petitioners need not go
for ordeal of the trial since the entire proceedings are vitiated
and clear abuse of process of court.
6. This Court finds that the petitioner is standing in the same
footing of A3 and A4. Therefore, the impugned proceedings is liable to be
quashed in respect of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
Petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC.No.113 of 2019 pending on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alandur is quashed in respect of
the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.04.2025
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Alandur
2.Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch (CCB), Land Grabbing Wing,
Chennai 600 007
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
CRL.O.P.No.9394 of 2025 and
Crl.MP.Nos.6281 & 6220 of 2025
25.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:18 pm )
