Madras High Court
Mohammed Musthapa vs The State Rep By on 19 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.3093 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.3093 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2262 and 2263 of 2025
Mohammed Musthapa ..... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State Rep by,
The Inspector Of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tiruppur District.
2.S.Jeganathan ..... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records final
report pertaining to CC No.333 of 2023 pending on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Palladam and quash the entire proceedings as against
the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Preethi Baskar
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.J.Jawahar
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
Crl.OP.No.3093 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.333 of 2023 pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Palladam, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 120B, 419, 467, 468, 471, 109 of IPC, 1860 read with Section
82(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that there exists a cultivating
tenancy agreement No.127/1911 dated 24.01.1911, executed between the
defacto complainant's ancestor Muthu Gounder and the 1st accused's
grandfather and father, viz., Beer Sahib and Mytheen Sahib, who were
the original holders of the property admeasuring 8 acres and 60 cents,
situated at Narayanapuram Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
Subsequent to the demise of Muthu Gounder, his legal heirs, viz.,
Chenniappan Gounder, Ramasamy Gounder and the defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
complaintant's grandfather Karupana Gounder obtained Ryotwari patta
through the Gopi Settlement Tahsildar. After due enquiry, patta was
granted on 11.07.1967.
4. It is further alleged that the said property was subsequently
subdivided among the legal heirs of Muthu Gounder and “A” Schedule
property admeasuring 2 acres 30 cents was allotted to Cheniyappan
Gounder, “B” Schedule property admeasuring 2 acres was allotted to
Ramasamy Gounder and “C” Schedule property was allotted to the
defacto complainant's father Subha Gounder. It is further alleged that
A1, being the great-grandson and legal heir of Beer Sahib and Mytheen
Sahib, along with other legal heirs induced A2 and A3 to execute a
power of attorney in their favour vide Document No.10/1997 dated
16.05.1997 by creating a forged document.
5. Further, it is alleged that A2, under the guidance of A3 and A4,
executed a fake and fabricated sale deed by impersonating as Manimaran
(shown as witness) in Document No.1806/1997. Using this fraudulent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
sale deeds, A3 and A4 executed another forged sale deed in their favour
registered as Document No.2485/1999. Subsequently, A3 andA4 issued
a General Power of Attorney in favour of A1 andA5 vide Document
No.551/2005 dated 26.05.2005, which was later cancelled by A3,
without the knowledge of A4, due to a money dispute between them,
vide Document No.989/2009, dated 04.08.2009.
6. It is also alleged that A3 forged a driving license and
impersonated as A4 in order to fraudulently cancel the said power of
attorney through Document No.1071/2009, dated 20.08.2009. A6 and
A7 are stated to have signed as witnesses to this cancellation, and the
entire document was allegedly prepared by A8. Further, it is alleged that
A3 misrepresented himself as A4 and executed a power of attorney in
favour of A9, pertaining to a land extent of 8 acres and 30 cents,
including 30 cents of Government land, vide Document No.1112/2009,
dated 28.08.2009 and the same was signed by A6, A7 and A8 as
witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
7. Finally, the defacto complainant filed a complaint, which was
registered as FIR in Crime No.27 of 2013 before the Tiruppur Land
Grabbing Cell. A3 subsequently filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.26720 of
2014 before this Court and the same was dismissed and this Court
directed the prosecution to file a charge sheet against the accused. It is
further alleged that A3 executed a fabricated power of attorney in favour
of A.Dhanapal and R.Rasu and A.Jeyaraj and P.Kannan have allegedly
signed as witnesses in Document No.5803/2020, dated 25.06.2020.
Based on the same, the prosecution filed the impugned charge sheet in
C.C.No.333 of 2023.
8. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2013
for the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 467, 468, 471, 109 of IPC
read with Section 82(d) of the Registration Act. After completion of
investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same was
taken cognizance in C.C.No. 333 of 2023 by the trial Court and it is
pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the
present petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 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 under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 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 180 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
12. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that whether the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the
ground raised by the petitioner 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.333 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Palladam. Considering the age of the petitioners, the
personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be
represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However,
the petitioner 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. The trial Court is directed to complete the
trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of
this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
19.03.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Vv
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Palladam
2.The Inspector Of Police,
DCB (ALGSC) Police Station,
Tiruppur-641 601.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 12:19:43 pm )
