Madras High Court
Padmavathi vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.2199 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.2199 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1240 and 1241 of 2023
1. Padmavathi
2. Visalaachi
3. Annaporni
4. Arumugam
5. Prabahkaran ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram.
2. Balu @ Jayabalan ... Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.69 of 2018 on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate at Vanur, Villupuram District and quash the same.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.2199 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.69 of
2018 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Vanur, Villupuram
District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the original disputed property, to
an extent of 4 acres and 48 cents, belongs to one Srinivasan. The said
Srinivasan is the father of the first to third petitioners herein. Out of the said
4 acres and 48 cents, the father of the first to third petitioners executed a
Will in favor of his wife, viz., Maragathammal, to an extent of 1 acre 48
cents. Based on the said Will, the mother of the first to third petitioners
herein executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Anbarasu, vide
Document No. 162 of 2006, dated 10.04.2006. Based on the said power of
attorney, Anbarasu executed a sale in favour of one Anbumani, vide
Document No. 3716 of 2007, dated 01.06.2007. In the said sale deed, the
first accused, viz., Paragunan, endorsed as one of the witnesses in the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
document. Knowing that her mother had already executed a sale deed in
favour of the de facto complainant, the first accused, along with other
accused (A3 to A5), executed a general power of attorney, which was
registered as Document No. 400 of 2009 on 17.07.2009. Thus, the accused
persons created a fabricated document to enrich themselves with an illegal
motive and thereby caused monetary loss to the de facto complainant.
Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any basis, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No. 14 of 2010 for the offences under Sections
420, 467, 468, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC against the petitioners, and the same
has been taken cognizance in C.C. No. 69 of 2018 on the file of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate at Vanur, Villupuram District. Hence, he prayed to
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that
the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been
examined in this case.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and
perused the materials placed on record.
6. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioners are
arrayed as A3 to A7. The mother of petitioners 1 to 3 owned the subject
property and had executed a power of attorney in favour of the second
respondent's vendor. In turn, the power of attorney had executed a sale deed
in respect of half of the property in favour of the second respondent. After
purchasing, the principal, viz., the mother of petitioners 1 to 3, had
cancelled the power of attorney and subsequently died. Suppressing the said
facts, once again petitioners 1 to 3, along with other legal heirs, executed a
power of attorney in favour of the fifth petitioner herein to deal with the
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
7. That apart, the first to third petitioners and A1 and A2 filed a suit
in O.S. No. 51 of 2011 against the second respondent for a declaration
declaring that the sale deed executed in his favour is null and void.
Therefore, it is clear that petitioners 1 to 3 had absolute knowledge about
the sale deed executed in favour of the second respondent, and immediately
after the demise of their mother, once again they executed a power of
attorney in favour of the fifth petitioner herein. Therefore, there are
materials to attract the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120(B) r/w 34
of IPC.
8. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent,
the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2010 for the
offences Sections 420, 467, 468, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC. After completion of
investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been
taken cognizance in C.C.No.69 of 2018 by the trial Court and it is pending.
To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioners filed the present
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in
2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar
& Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the
petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts
have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record
a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore,
there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be
done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and
by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final
order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation
of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no
power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for
quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon
an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court
should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form
the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of.
Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for
taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the
allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would
not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove
the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage
i.e., during trial.
12. Further, this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation
of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding
is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
ground raised by the petitioners to quash the final report/charge sheet
cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.69 of 2018 on the file of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate at Vanur, Villupuram District. The petitioners are at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The personal
appearance of the second and third petitioners are dispensed with and they
shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.
However, the second and third petitioners shall be present before the Court
at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
11.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
To
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram.
2. The Judicial Magistrate at Vanur,
Villupuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
kv
11.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:09:35 pm )
