Madras High Court
Raja @ Maheen Abubucker vs The State on 13 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.756 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.756 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.10972 & 10973 of 2025
Raja @ Maheen Abubucker ..... Petitioner
Vs
The State, rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
CCB, Team XVI A, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007. ..... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 r/w. 442 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated
28.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.76780 of 2024 in C.C.No.4606 of 2023, by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating
to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai and
allow this Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devaraj
for Mr.R.Gopinath
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:34 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.756 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order
dated 28.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.76780 of 2024 in C.C.No.4606 of 2023
on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive Trial of CCB Cases
(Relating to Cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore,
Chennai, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking
discharge from the charges under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468,
471 and 474 of IPC r/w 34 of the Registration Act, 1908.
2. The case of the prosecution is that originally the property
belonged to the defacto complainant, having been purchased through a
registered sale deed from his vendor. On verification of the encumbrance
certificate, the defacto complainant found that the very same property was sold
out to various third parties by A1 to A3 who by impersonating the owner
executed a forged power of attorney in favour of A1. Subsequently, A1, with
the help of A2 and A3, sold the subject property to various persons Hence, the
present charges were framed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that though the petitioner has been arrayed as A3, he was an employee of A1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:34 pm )
and has nothing to do with the offence as alleged by the defacto complainant.
There is absolutely no material on record to connect the petitioner to the alleged
offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of
IPC r/w 34 of the Registration Act, 1908. No document was signed by the
petitioner. Even according to the case of the prosecution, A1 obtained a power
of attorney by impersonating and sold the properties to various third parties, in
which A2 stood as a witness. The petitioner had neither signed as a witness
nor executed any document related to the alleged offence. Even then the
prosecution has falsely implicated the petitioner as an accused without any
substantive evidence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
5. A perusal of the statement of the defacto complainant reveals
that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, since he actively
participated along with A1 and A2, during the execution of the sale deed in
favour of various third parties. The power of attorney was executed in favour
of A1 by impersonating the defacto complainant, in which the petitioner
actively played role and as such, the prosecution rightly charged the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:34 pm )
for the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
474 of IPC r/w 34 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the Trial Court rightly
dismissed the application seeking discharge of the petitioner from the said
charges.
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality
in the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.76780 of 2024 in
C.C.No.4606 of 2023, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive
Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro
Cases, Egmore, Chennai. However, the personal appearance of the petitioner
before the Trial Court is dispensed with and he shall be permitted to be
represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. The petitioner
shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing copies, framing of
charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing
judgment.
7. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:34 pm )
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Lpp
To
1. Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive Trial of CCB Cases
(Relating to Cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases,
Egmore, Chennai,
2.The Inspector of Police,
CCB, Team XVI A, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:34 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:34 pm )
