Madras High Court
R. Kannan S/O. M.S. Raju vs State Rep. By on 30 April, 2025
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 30.04.2025
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL
CRL OP.(MD) Nos.4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
and Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos.3415, 3416 of 2024 and 3460, 3465 of 2025
R. Kannan S/o. M.S. Raju ... Petitioner /1st Accused
[Crl. O.P.(MD) No.4324/2024]
B. Venkateswaralu S/o. Balakrishnan ... Petitioner / Accused No.2
[Crl. O.P.(MD) No.4821/2025]
Vs
1. State rep. by:-
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul District. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
[Cr. No.41 of 2021] [Common in both Crl. O.Ps.]
2. Kalavathi W/o. Sridharan ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto
Complainant.
[Common in both Crl. O.Ps.]
COMMON PRAYER: -These Criminal Original Petitions are filed
under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying to quash the impugned Charge
Sheet filed by the 1st respondent in C.C. No.400 of 2023 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Dindigul in Cr. No.41 of 2021 on the
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
file of the 1st respondent registered for the offences under Sections 420,
468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC.
For Petitioners : Mr. D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
[Crl. O.P. No.4324 of 2024]
Mr. J. Lawrance
[Crl. O.P. No.4821 of 2025]
For Respondent : Mr. Vaikkam Karunanithi [for R1]
Government Advocate
[Criminal side]
[common in both Crl.O.Ps.]
Mr. R.M. Makesh Kumaravel
[for R2]
[common in both Crl.O.Ps.]
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the
petitioners to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C. No.400 of 2023 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused namely
Kannan is the brother of the defacto complainant and the 2nd accused
B. Venkateswaralu is the son of the defacto complainant's Sister and the
1st accused. The father of the defacto complainant namely M.S. Raju
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
died, while he was taking treatment in A.R. Hospital, K.K. Nagar,
Madurai on 12.02.2012. The said factum of death was registered before
the Madurai Corporation office. While so, without disclosing the fact
that the deceased M.S. Raju died at Madurai A.R. Hospital, they obtained
certificate from Dr. Ashokkumar, Dindigul as if the said M.S. Raju died
in his house at Dindigul and registered the same before the Dindigul
Corporation and obtained Legal Heir Certificate from the Tahsildar.
Thereafter, based on the Death Certificate obtained from the Dindigul
Corporation and the Certificate obtained from the Cremation Centre, in
order to grab the properties of the said M.S. Raju, the accused caused
criminal intimidation. The 2nd accused abetted the 1st accused by
mentioning his name as 'informer' in the death intimation form for the
death of M.S. Raju, thereby, they committed the offences under Sections
420, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC. The 1st accused was charged under
Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC and the 2nd accused was
charged under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
3. Since both the Criminal Original petitions are arising out of the
same charge sheet, this Court is inclined to pass a common order.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.4324 of 2024 is arrayed as 1st accused
and the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.4821 of 2025 is arrayed as 3rd accused
and one Dr. Ashok Kumar was arrayed as 2nd accused in the FIR. In
fact, the 2nd respondent herein / defacto complainant has sent a
complaint dated 16.07.2021 to the 1st respondent by post and thereafter,
filed a Writ petition in W.P. No.13321 of 2021 seeking direction to
enquire into the complaint and thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a
complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate forwarded the said
complaint to the 1st respondent herein and subsequently, the 1st
respondent has registered a case in Cr. No.41 of 2021 for the offences
under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC. The 2nd accused, who
was a Doctor, has filed a petition before this Court in Crl. O.P.(MD) No.
2466 of 2022 seeking to quash the FIR against him and the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2022. Thereafter, the 1st
respondent filed a charge sheet as against the petitioners in these
petitions i.e., A1 and A2 without any prima facie evidence. There is a
property dispute between the parties in respect of Survey No.367/5A to
an extent of 1.2 acres. The father of the petitioner in Crl. O.P.(MD) No.
4324 of 2024 namely M.S. Raju (A1 as per charge sheet) was residing at
Gopalpatti, Dindigul along with his wife and he was suffering from heart
ailment from 11.02.2012. Dr. Ashokkumar, who is the family Doctor of
the said M.S. Raju, had given treatment at his house and subsequently,
the said Raju was taken to A.R. hospital, Madurai for further treatment
on 12.02.2012, but on the same day, while he was under treatment, he
died. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the residence of the
petitioner / 1st accused and was cremated in the electric cremation centre
at Govindapuram, Dindigul. The death report was sent to the Village
Administrative Officer by the Cremation Centre. It was sent only at the
instance of Mr. Rajkumar, who is the son of the defacto complainant, the
Village Administrative Officer has recorded the death of the said M.S.
Raju and issued the Death Certificate and there is absolutely no false or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
misleading information given in respect of the death of the said M.S.
Raju. The defacto complainant filed a Suit for Partition in O.S. No.377
of 2012 and the same is pending before the Principal Sub Court,
Dindigul. While so, the defacto complainant has filed a complaint before
the District Crime Branch after 10 years from the date of death of M.S.
Raju with malafide intention. Thereafter, he filed a complaint before the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. suppressing the pendency of Writ petition before this Court.
Therefore, the Civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case with
malafide intention.
4.1. The charge sheet has been filed for the offences under
Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC. The offences for forgery of
document under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC are concerned, there are no
ingredients attracted to constitute the offences and no any false document
has been created and no any allegation in respect of forgery or any forged
document within the meaning of Section 464 of IPC. As far as Section
420 of IPC is concerned, no ingredients to attract the provision under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
Section 415 of IPC. There are no averments in respect of making a false
statement so as to deceive any person and fraudulently and dishonestly
inducing a person to deliver any property or to do or omit to do
something. As far as Section 506(i) of IPC is concerned, there are no
ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation and there
should be a threat with an intent to cause alarm to that person and the
threat should be a real one and not just a mere word. Therefore, there are
no any ingredients to constitute the above said offences, even as per the
prosecution case. The Trial Court, without considering the fact that no
prima facie materials available to constitute the offences, had taken
cognizance. Therefore, the pending charge sheet is liable to be quashed
against these petitioners.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon
the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
1.Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., reported in 2006(4) CTC
2.Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee reported in AIR 2008 SC Page 210.
3.P. Ashok Kumar v. Inspector of Police, J.J. Nagar Police Station,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
Chennai reported in 2009 (1) MLJ (Crl) 352.
4.Pepsi Food v. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 SCC (Cri)
1400.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing
for the 1st respondent would submit that there is property dispute between
the petitioner/ 1st accused Kannan and the defacto complainant. The
defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate
Court No.II, Dindigul, the said complaint was forwarded to the 1 st
respondent Police and they registered a case in Cr. No.41 of 2021 and
thereafter, they conducted an elaborate investigation and filed a final
report. Based on the final report, the trial Court had taken cognizance in
C.C. No.400 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and
506(i) of IPC. As per the investigation, there are prima facie materials
available as against these petitioners, thereby, they have to face the trial
and at this stage, the prayer of the petitioners cannot be considered.
Therefore, these Criminal Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent
would submit that the petitioners suppressed the place of death of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
father of the defacto complainant M.S. Raju, who died at A.R. Hospital,
Madurai and by making false representation, they obtained Death
Certificate and Legal Heir Certificate from the Revenue Authorities at
Dindigul. The 1st accused caused criminal intimidation and the 2nd
accused stated in the Death report that it was informed about the death of
the above said M.S. Raju as if the said Raju died at his residence at
Dindigul. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul and the learned Magistrate after
satisfying that there are prima facie materials available, forwarded the
complaint to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also registered an
FIR and conducted proper investigation and filed the final report. As per
the final report, there are prima facie materials available as against these
petitioners and they have to face the trial. Therefore, at this stage, the
present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
9. As per the prosecution case, the father of the defacto
complainant and the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.4324 of 2024 namely
Kannan, had died at A.R. Hospital, Madurai and he was cremated at
Dindigul. But they obtained Death Certificate as if he died in the
residence at Dindigul. Based on the said Certificate, the accused
obtained a Legal Heir Certificate, thereby, the defacto complainant
lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul
and the same was forwarded to the 1st respondent police and they
registered the case in Cr. No.41 of 2021 for the offences under Sections
420, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC and thereafter, they filed a final report.
10. In this case, there is no dispute that the deceased died at A.R.
Hospital, Madurai and thereafter, he was cremated at Dindigul.
Thereafter, the Death Certificate was issued as if he died in the residence
at Dindigul, thereby, charged for the offences under Sections 420, 468,
471 and 506(i) of IPC. Merely because, the death certificate was issued
at Dindigul by mentioning the place of death at Dindigul, it does not
amount to offence of either cheating or creating forged documents or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
forgery. As far as the offence under Section 420 of IPC is concerned,
there should be prima facie material to show that a person, whoever
cheats, thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part
of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which
is capable of being converted into a valuable security. But in the case on
hand, to attract the above said ingredients, there are no materials
available against these petitioners.
11. As far as the offence under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC are
concerned, ‘forgery of document’ is sine-qua-non for attracting the above
said offences. The term ‘forgery’ used in these sections is defined in
Section 463 of IPC. As per the above Section, making any ‘false
documents’ with intent to cause damage or injury to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or
to enter into express or implied contract would amount to forgery.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
12. Section 464 defining ‘making a false document’ is extracted
below:
“464. Making a false document: A person is said to make a false
document or false electronic record –
First – who dishonestly or fraudulently,
(a)Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a
document;
(b)Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any
electronic records;
(c)Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d)Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the
authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document or a part of
document, electronic record or digital signature was made,
signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly, who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or
an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has
been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by
himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or
dead at the time of such alternation; or
Thirdly, who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to
sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record
or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced
upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
13. A careful reading of Section 464 of IPC, it divides false
documents into three categories and a person is said to have made a false
document, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be some
one else or authorized by some one else, (ii) he altered or tampered a
document, (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a
person not in control of his senses.
14. In the case on hand, both the certificates obtained from the
Dindigul Corporation and they do not fall under the above said
categories. Even if the document is obtained based on the false
information, it does not amount to false document within the meaning of
Section 464 of IPC. Therefore, the death certificate obtained from the
Dindigul Corporation cannot be considered as a false document as per
Section 464 of IPC. In this case, there is no allegation in respect of
forgery or forged document within the meaning of 464 of IPC.
Therefore, in the absence of such allegations, Sections 468 and 471 of
IPC will not attract in this case.
15. As far as Section 506(i) of IPC is concerned, it is well settled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
law that there should be a threat with an intent to cause alarm to that
person and the threat should be a real one and not just mere a word. In
the case on hand, as per the FIR and charge sheet, there are no materials
to show that threat made by the petitioners caused alarm to the defacto
complainant and therefore, there are no materials to attract the
ingredients for the offences under Section 506(i) of IPC.
16. Moreover, a civil dispute is pending between the defacto
complainant and the petitioner namely Kannan in O.S. No.377 of 2012
on the file of Principal Sub Court, Dindigul and the said M.S. Raju died
in the year 2012, but the present complaint has been lodged in the year
2021, after a long delay. Therefore, the complaint has been lodged
before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul with malafide
intention.
17. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners have relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
(i) Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., reported in
2006(4) CTC 60.
(ii) Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee reported in AIR 2008 SC Page
On careful perusal of the above said judgments, it is clear that the
criminal proceedings are not short cut of other remedies available in law.
Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any
criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution
should be depreciated and discouraged. In the case on hand also, a civil
dispute is pending between the parties from the year 2012 and the present
complaint was lodged after 9 years i.e, in 2021.
17.1. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
also relied upon judgment in P. Ashok Kumar v. Inspector of Police,
J.J. Nagar Police Station, Chennai reported in 2009 (1) MLJ (Crl) 352,
wherein this Court depreciated the practice of the Magistrates in referring
civil disputes for police investigation or taking cognizance by themselves
by illegally imputed criminal flavour to civil disputes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
17.2. Further, from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Pepsi Food v. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 SCC (Cri)
1400, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it
is clear that it is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of
recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused and
the Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record
and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses
to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by
all or any of the accused.
18. In the case on hand also, the Magistrate failed to consider that
the civil dispute pending between the parties, the complaint was filed
after a lapse of 9 years and the civil dispute was given a colour of
criminal case and without considering the materials simply forwarded the
complaint to the 1st respondent police. The 1st respondent police also
without conducting proper investigation, filed the final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
Therefore, there are no prima facie materials to constitute the offences
under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC as per the prosecution
materials. Without any prima facie materials, these petitioners cannot
face the ordeal of trial. Moreover, this Court already quashed the FIR as
against the Doctor, who issued Death report to the deceased.
19. Therefore, in view of the above said discussions, this Court is
of the opinion that there are no prima facie materials to constitute the
offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC and therefore,
the pending proceedings as against these petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and
2 in C.C. No.400 of 2023 are liable to be quashed.
20. Accordingly, these Criminal Original petitions are allowed and
the pending proceedings in C.C. No.400 of 2023 as against these
petitioners are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.04.2025
index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Dindigul
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
CRL O.P. (MD) Nos.
4324 of 2024 and 4821 of 2025
P.DHANABAL,J
aav
and 4821 of 2025
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
