Madras High Court
Devendran vs The State Represented By on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.16423 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 11.03.2025
Pronounced on : 28.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.16423 of 2023
and
Crl.MP.No.10495 of 2023
Devendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Puzhal Police Station,
Madhavaram,Chennai.
(Cr.No.736 of 2022)
2. P.Praveen Kumar ... Respondents.
(R2 impleaded as per order dated
01.08.2023 in Crl.MP.No.11397 /2023
in Crl.OP.No.16423 of 2023)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Cr.No.736
of 2022 pending on the file of the respondent police and quash the
same against the petitioner.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
Crl.OP.No.16423 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1
: Mr.P.Praveen Kumar
(Party-in-Person-R2)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.
736 of 2022 registered by the first respondent police.
2(i). The case of the prosecution is that the second
respondent/defacto complainant is the brother of first accused by
name Prem Kumar. The first accused had settled along with his wife
in United Kingdom (London). While being so, on 28.01.2022, the
father of the first accused and the second respondent/defacto
complainant died intestate, leaving behind them as his legal heirs.
On 01.02.2022, the first accused has filed an on-line application
seeking issuance of legal heirship certificate in the name of the
second respondent/defacto complainant without his consent that too
by forging his signature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
2(ii) The further case of the prosecution is that on receipt of
such application, the Revenue Officials have visited the second
respondent's/defacto complainant's house for field verification on
07.02.2022. Thereafter, the second respondent/defacto complainant
came to understand that his signature was forged and fraudulently
applied for legal heirship certificate.
2(iii) It is also the case of the prosecution that the first accused
has come from London and obtained legal heirship certificate by
furnishing false documents i.e.,Pancard, Address Proof from the
Taluk Office, Purasawalkam. The third accused/petitioner herein has
facilitated the first accused/brother of the second respondent/defacto
complainant to commit the offence. Hence, the second respondent/
defacto complainant has lodged a complaint before the respondent
police against the petitioner and others.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/
defacto complainant, the first respondent has registered an FIR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
against the petitioner and others in Cr.No.736 of 2022 for the
offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of IPC and
C.S.R.No.156 of 2022 was issued to the second respondent/defacto
complainant.
4(i). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that there is no specific overt act as against the petitioner, except his
name in the FIR. Since he is the family member of the first accused,
he has been falsely implicated in this case and as far as his
daughter/A2 and son-in-law/A1 are concerned, at the time of
occurrence they were in London.
4(ii) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that on 11.08.2021, the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint
before the CCB-1, Chennai as against the second respondent/defacto
complainant and one Perumal for the offences under Sections 420,
465, 468, 120B of IPC in Cr.No.158 of 2021and the same is pending
investigation. He further submits that aggrieved over the same, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
defacto complainant has lodged the present complaint before the
respondent police implicating the petitioner to wreck vengeance upon
the petitioner. Further, he states that there is no material evidence to
prove the commission of any of the offences made against the
petitioner in the FIR and hence, the same is liable to be quashed as
against the petitioner.
4(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
later the first accused/brother of the second respondent has filed a
fresh application in his name and obtained legal heirship certificate
by furnishing all the required documents. The application which was
allegedly filed by the first accused was not acted upon. Even
assuming that the said application was considered and the petitioner
was issued legal heirship certificate for the demise of their father
Perumal, the Revenue Officials issued legal heir ship consisting of
both the first accused and the second respondent herein as his
legalheirs. In pursuance to issuance of legal heirship certificate, it
was not used for any purpose.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contentions, relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India reported in 2024 SCC on-line SCC 58 rendered in Mariam
Fasihuddin and another Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station and
another in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the forgery
and cheating committed with an intention to deceive or cheat an
individual, the offence under Section 468 and 420 of IPC can attract.
If there is no dishonest to intent to commit forgery and without intent
to deceive or cheat an individual, the offence under Section 468 and
471 and 420 are not made out.
6(i). The second respondent appeared before this Court (party-
in-person) and submits that the first accused forged his signature and
applied for issuance of legal heirship certificate on the demise of
their father Perumal. On receipt of the said application, the Revenue
Officials have visited for verification, the second respondent/defacto
complainant came to understand that his signature was forged and
filed application for issuance of legal heirship certificate. Only on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
basis of the complaint, the second respondent was initially issued
C.S.R.No.156 of 2022. Thereafter, conducting preliminary enquiry,
the first respondent has registered an FIR. The FIR cannot be
quashed on its threshold and has to investigate in depth to find out
the truth.
6(ii)The second respondent further submits that the person
who impersonated the second respondent has filed anticipatory bail
petition before this Court in Cr.No.736 of 2022 and the same was
dismissed. Infact after conducting preliminary enquiry and obtained
legal opinion by the first respondent, FIR has been registered in
Cr.No.736 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468,
471 and 420 of I.P.C r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for
the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on getting
instructions from the Investigating Officer submits that the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
is the father-in-law of the first accused and father of the second
accused respectively. Both the first and second accused had settled in
London and they are the citizens of United Kingdom. He confirms
that after complaint, the first accused has filed an application for
issuance of legal heirship certificate in his name, annexing all
relevant revenue documents and on receipt of the same, the Revenue
Authorities has issued legal heirship certificate, in which the first
accused and the second respondent are the only the legal heirs of the
deceased Perumal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second
respondent (party-in-person) and the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the
materials available on record.
9(i). A perusal of records reveals that there are totally three
accused involved in this case, in which the petitioner is arrayed as
A3/third accused. The petitioner is none other than the father-in-law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
of the first accused and the father of the second accused. The first and
second accused are living in London. The first accused and the
second respondent are brothers. Their father's name is Perumal and
their mother predeceased his father.
9(ii). Admittedly, the first accused and the second respondent
are brothers and they are the only legal heirs of the deceased
Perumal. Initially, the first accused made an application in the name
of the second respondent for issuance of legal heirship certificate of
their demised father Perumal. However, after complaint, the first
accused has filed application for issuance of legal heirship certificate
in his name, annexing all relevant revenue documents.
9(iii) On receipt of the same, the Revenue Authority has issued
legal heirship certificate, in which the first accused and the second
respondent are the only the legal heirs of the deceased Perumal.
Even assuming that on the application filed by the first accused in the
name of the second respondent, the legal heirship certificate was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
issued, it is nothing to do with the other allegations. The first accused
has produced all relevant revenue records showing the first accused
and the second respondent alone are the legal heirs of their demised
father Perumal.
10. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the judgments
reported in 2024 SCC on-line SCC 58 rendered in Mariam
Fasihuddin and another Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station and
another, the following Paragraph Nos.33 and 34 are extracted
hereunder.
“ The offence of forgery under Sections 468
and 471 of IPC:
33. The offence of ' forgery' under Section 468
IPC postulates that whoever commits forgery,
intending that the document or electronic document
forged, shall be used for the purpose of cheating,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine. Whereas
Section 471 IPC states that whoever fraudulently or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
dishonestly uses as genuine any documents which he
knows or has reason to believe it to be a forged
document, shall be punished in the same manner as
if had forged such document.
34. There are two primary components that
need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence
of '' forgery'' namely (i) that the accused has
fabricated an instrument; and (ii) it was done with
the intention that the forged document would be
used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the
offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false
document with the dishonest intention of causing
damage or injury”.
11. The above judgement is squarely applicable to the case on
hand. Thus, it is clear that in order to attract the offence under
Sections 468 and 471 of IPC, there are two primary components that
need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of ‘forgery’,
namely:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
“....(i) that the accused has fabricated an instrument; and
(ii) it was done with the intention that the forged
document would be used for the purpose of cheating.
Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the
preparation of a false document with the dishonest
intention of causing damage or injury”....
Therefore, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of false
document with the dishonest intention of causing damage.
12. As far as forgery is concerned, the offences of ‘forgery’
and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is
committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. In so far
as cheating is concerned, it stands established that no dishonest
intent can be made out as against the petitioner.
13. Even according to the second respondent, the first accused
has applied for issuance of legal heirship certificate by producing
various revenue documents, the second respondent has also included
as legal heirs of their demised father Perumal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
14. That apart, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is the
father-in-law of the first accused and the father of the second
accused, except this relationship, there is absolutely no allegations as
against the petitioner to felicitate the other accused persons for
committing the offence. It is nothing but counter blast to the
complaint filed by the first accused against the second respondent
which resulted in registration of FIR in Cr.No.184 of 2021
Cr.No.1860 and Cr.No.158 of 2021.
15. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 420
of the Penal Code as follows :-
420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property —
Whoever cheats and 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, shall be punished with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC are
as follows :-
(i) A person must commit the offence of
cheating under Section 415 and
(ii) The person cheated must be
dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to
any person or (b) make, alter or destroy
valuable security or anything signed or sealed
and capable of being converted into valuable
security.
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence
under Section 420.
16. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment made by the
Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Indian Oil
Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others reported in (2006)
6 SCC 736, held that the civil liability cannot be converted into
criminal liability and it is necessary to take notice of a growing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
tendency in business circle to convert purely civil dispute in criminal
case. This is obviously on account of prevalent impression that civil
law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the
interest of lender/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family
disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could
somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood
of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claim
which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and dishonoured.
17. In the case of G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in 2000 (2) SCC 636, the Honourable Supreme Court of
India held as follows:-
“It is to be seen if a matter, which is
essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak
of criminal offence, criminal proceedings are not
a short cut of other remedies available in law.
Before issuing process a criminal Court has to
exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which High Court is to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
18. It is relevant to rely upon the land mark Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and
others Vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the
following categories of instances wherein inherent powers can be
exercised in order to secure the ends of justice as follows:-
“(a) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
19 .In view of the above, the entire FIR is nothing but clear
abuse of process of law and cannot be sustained not only against the
petitioner and also against A1 and A2 though the petitioner alone
filed this petition, in the interest of justice. Therefore, the FIR
registered in Cr.No.736 of 2022 cannot be sustained as against all
accused and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is hereby
quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
20. In the result, this Criminal Original petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Vv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Puzhal Police Station,
Madhavaram,Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
Pre-delivery Order
made in
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:29 pm )
