[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Revathi vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Special Sub ... on 30 April, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRL OP(MD) Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026 and
CrlMP(MD)No.7562, 8044 and 8750 of 2026
In Crl OP(MD)No.7012 of 2026:
Revathi ...Petitioner/A2
Vs
1.The State,
Rep by Special Sub Inspector of Police,
DCB Police Station, Thanjavur.
[Crime No.36 of 2025]
2.Magamtha ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call
for the entire records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of
the Inspector of Police, DCB, Thanjavur District and quash the same as far as
the petitioner is concerned.
In Crl OP(MD)No.7450 of 2026
1.Manikandan
2.P.Aadhithiya
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
3.Kavitha Senthilkumar
4.Sujatha Manikandan ...Petitioners
Vs
1.The State,
Rep by Special Sub Inspector of Police,
DCB Police Station,Thanjavur.
[Crime No.36 of 2025]
2.Magamtha ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call
for the entire records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of
the Inspector of Police, DCB, Thanjavur District and quash the same as far as
the petitioners are concerned.
In CrlOP(MD)No.8129 of 2026
1.B.Nagarajan
2.Senthilkumar ...Petitioners
Vs
1.The State,
Rep by Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Tamil University Police Station,
Thanjavur.
[Crime No.87 of 2026]
2.Magamtha ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
for the entire records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.87 of 2026 on the file of
the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Tamil University Police Station, Thanjavur
District and quash the same as far as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Ramesh
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Ashwin
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent : Mr.N.Anandha Padmanabhan
No.2 Senior Counsel for
M/S.CRM Legal
in all CrlOPs
COMMON ORDER
These petitions are filed by the accused to quash the proceedings
which is pending as against them on the file of the respective respondent police
stations.
2.The criminal original petitions in CrlOP(MD)No.7012 of 2026 and
CrlOP(MD)No.7450 of 2026 are filed by accused No.2 and accused Nos.9 to 12
respectively in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of the District Crime Branch,
Thanjavur. The criminal original petition in CrlOP(MD)No.8129 of 2026 is
filed by the accused in Crime No.87 of 2026 on the file of the Tamil University
Police Station. The accused in Crime No.87 of 2026 are also shown as an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
accused in Crime No.36 of 2025 and the defacto complainant in both cases is
one and the same. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, these applications
are heard together and disposed by way of this common order.
3.The gist of the case in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of the
District Crime Branch, Thanjavur is as under:
The defacto complainant one Magamatha is a septuagenarian and
resident of Singapore holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card.
Her husband is a businessman involved in the shipping industry at Singapore
and passed away in the year 2015 leaving behind huge properties in India.
There were certain litigations instituted by relatives and SARFAESI
proceedings pending with regard to the properties and she was finding it
difficult to manage the litigations and the properties. At that time, one Sumathi/
A7, an erstwhile employee of her husband approached her and advised her in
resolving the issues. She introduced the defacto complainant to one Konguvel
Chellapan / A8 working as a Public Relations Officer in a hotel in Chennai and
he in turn introduced the defacto complainant to one Nagarajan/ A4, the law
officer of that hotel and advocates, A6 and A1. The accused have projected as if
the relatives of the de facto complainant were attempting to abduct her for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
sake of properties and under the guise of defending the cases regarding the
properties, the accused have obtained her signatures in blank papers,
vakalatnamas and also advised her to execute power deeds to save her
properties. With these power documents and blank documents, they have
created various sale deeds among themselves without her knowledge and
cheated her of properties to the tune of Rs.700 crores. They also broke open into
the house and lockers of the defacto complainant and taken away documents,
ornaments and jewels in her absence. The accused allegedly intimidated her and
her children with dire consequences and therefore, she has lodged a complaint
through the Consulate General of India in Singapore and thereafter lodged this
complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur in 2025. On the basis
of the same, a case in Crime No.36 of 2025 was registered on 27.12.2025 for the
offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471 of the IPC read
with Section 120B of the IPC.
4.The gist of the case in Crime No.87 of 2026 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Tamil University Police Station is as under:
The de facto complainant was present inside the Joint Registrar
Office, Thanjavur on 16.03.2026 in connection with obtaining official details
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
regarding her properties. At about 3.00pm, the accused, one Nagarajan and
Senthilkumar along with unknown persons entered the office, pointed at her and
watched at her in an intimidating manner creating fear and emotional distress to
her. Thereafter, when the de facto complainant wrongfully restrained her near
the Collectorate premises and threatened her and using filthy and abusive
language towards her. For the above incidents, the case in Crime No.86 of 2026
was registered on 17.03.2026 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 126(2),
296(b) and 351(2) of the BNS and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women (Amendment Act) 2002.
5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners questioned the
sustainability of these FIR's and his submissions are summarised as under:
(i)These proceedings arose out of a property dispute relating to the
estate of one Shaik Serjadueen which is purely civil in nature and the same has
been given a criminal colour. Civil suits are pending on the subject matter filed
by and against the 2nd respondent. However by suppressing the same, the
criminal case has been registered.
(ii) The complaint of civil nature has been registered by the
respondent police as a criminal case without conducting any preliminary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
enquiry as contemplated under Section 173 of the BNSS.
(iii)The defacto complainant admits in her complaint about the
execution of power of attorney and other documents in the Sub Registrar Office,
however criminal case has been registered against the petitioners, as if
documents have been executed by impersonation.
(iv)The complaint is vague, bald one and lacking any foundational
facts to set criminal law in motion. There is no specification of the exact dates,
details of the documents and the specific role played by each accused is not
disclosed in the complaint.
(v)The admitted case of the defacto complainant is that she has
executed power of attorney documents, which are registered one, in favour of
one B.Nagarajan / A4 in the years 2016 and 2017. She had appeared before the
Sub Registrar Office, provided her PAN card, Aadhaar card and ID card for
registering each power of attorney document. Further, the defacto complainant
had filed income tax returns in India for the assessment years 2017 to 2023,
wherein the sale proceeds of every property of the defacto complainant has been
declared in the income tax returns and she had also paid the capital gains tax.
The sale consideration of her properties was not only reflected in her income tax
returns but also reflected in her bank accounts. While so, her complaint is prima
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
facie wrong without any materials constituting a criminal offence and therefore,
the complaint has to be thrown out.
(vi) All the documents were executed from the year 2017 till 2022.
The defacto complainant has lodged an earlier complaint bearing
No.GI/041383/2024 on 20.09.2024 on the very same set of facts, which was
already enquired by the police and it was closed as civil in nature. Suppressing
the closing of the earlier complaint, the present complaint has been lodged in
the year 2025. Further, the complaint has been lodged belatedly for the incidents
relating to the years from 2017 to 2022 and no explanation has been provided
for such delay in filing the complaint.
(vii)The complaint has been filed in the form of a request to the
respondent police to recover the properties and money of the petitioner from the
accused. Therefore, it becomes clear that the criminal law has been set in
motion with an object to recover money from the accused. It is a settled position
of law that the criminal courts cannot be used as a tool for recovery of money or
enforcing of civil rights. The disputes related to financial claims, property rights
or any breach of obligations are to be adjudicated before the competent civil
court by filing civil suits. However, the defacto complainant has lodged a
complaint regarding a civil dispute on the basis of which a criminal case has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
been registered.
(viii)The mere existence of a financial dispute or alleged loss does not
constitute a criminal offence, in the absence of the essential ingredients of the
penal provisions invoked. A reading of the complaint lodged by the defacto
complainant would show that the entire dispute revolves around the alleged
financial transactions and recovery of properties, for which the appropriate
remedy lies only before the civil forum. The attempt to give a criminal colour to
such civil disputes, with a view to exert pressure and expedite recovery,
amounts to abuse of process of the criminal justice system and warrants
interference from this court.
(ix)Even as per the allegations in the first information report, there is
no specific allegation involving the dishonest inducement or delivery of
property and hence the offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. Further,
the documents have admittedly been executed by the defacto complainant and
there are no materials to show her signatures were obtained without her consent
or knowledge. Therefore, the offences for forgery under sections 467, 468 and
471 IPC are not made out. As the materials do not reveal the commission of any
cognizable offence or the meeting of minds of the accused, the offence of
criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC is not made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
(x)The offence under Section 409 IPC is predicated upon criminal
breach of trust which requires a pre-existing relationship of entrustment and
subsequent dishonest misappropriation of the property so entrusted. On the
other hand, Section 420 IPC requires deception and fraudulent inducement
existing at the very inception of the transaction. Hence, these two offences are
mutually inconsistent and cannot exist together at the same time.
6.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondent police is
acting as a collection agent for the defacto complainant and they have foisted
the case in Crime No.87 of 2026 at the instance of influential persons in order to
coerce the petitioners to cancel the documents executed by them 7 years ago.
He has pointed out that these complaints have been lodged by the defacto
complainant in view of the hike in land prices and to get back the lands already
sold away.
7.The learned senior counsel has relied on the following judgments in
support of his contentions:
1.Mohammed Wajid & Ors vs. State of UP [AIR 2023 SC 37 84]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
2.Andhra Pradesh vs. P.V.Pavithran [1990 AIR 1266]
3.Chellappa & Co & Others vs. J.Mariya Amalraj
[2019 LW CRL 2148 ]
4.Samta Naidu & Ors vs. State [2020 NSC 248]
5.Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Ors [AIR 2024 SC 4531]
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police objected to the contentions of the petitioners and has made
his submissions which are summarised as under:
(i) The defacto complainant is a resident of Singapore. Her husband
Shaik Sirajudeen was having several properties in Thanjavur district.
Her husband died in the year 2015 and her relatives created problems, cases
have been filed in respect of the properties and the defacto complainant faced
difficulties in managing the same. At that point of time, one Vidhya Sumathi /
A7 an erstwhile employee of her husband had approached the
defacto complainant that she would help her in solving the issues.
She also introduced one Kongu Chellappan /A8 to the 2nd respondent, who acted
as a kingpin in the commission of the offence and he brought in other accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
persons Nagarajan/A4, Patricia and Prakash /A6. Nagarajan and Prakash are
Advocates. They have obtained signatures of the defacto complainant in blank
papers and vakalathnamas and guided her in executing power deeds to solve the
issues and to raise funds.
(ii) On the strength of the power of attorneys, Prakash/A1,
Revathi/A2, VM.Baskaran/A3 have executed numerous sale deeds on the
properties of the defacto complainant. The respondent police so far collected
around 150 registered documents executed by the accused between 2017 and
2023. All the documents were executed by the power holders with a common
recital that the properties were being sold for the purpose of reinvestment.
Conspicuously, there is no reinvestment or purchase of any property in the name
of the defacto complainant. The sale proceeds have been dishonestly diverted by
the accused persons for their wrongful gain.
(iii)Most of the sale deeds executed by the power holders reveal that
the sale consideration was received in cash. This suspicious and untraceable
mode of transaction, without any reinvestment, establishes fraudulent
misappropriation and concealment of the sale proceeds.
(iv) A general power of attorney was executed by the 2nd respondent
in favour of A.M.Bhaskaran/A3 on 04.07.2017 vide document No.2788 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
2017, with regard to 20.65 acres of land. Immediately on 07.07.2017, the power
holder has executed 50 sale agreements in favour of his daughter Revathi/A2.
All the documents were executed with an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- and
subsequently the documents were cancelled with an intent to create multiple
encumbrances. The property was sold at a cost of Rs.8,20,00,527/-, whereas the
market value of the property is around Rs.25 crores. Though the petitioner /
A2 claims that the sale consideration was paid to the principal, no document or
receipt has been produced evidencing the same, which shows that the claim of
the petitioners is completely false.
(v)The said Revathi / A2 has obtained a property in her favour vide
document No.8211 of 2022 through power agent Prakash/A1, on 12.11.2022
and on that date, the defacto complainant was not in India. This transaction was
executed by collusive means and the sale consideration of Rs.1,03,23,000/- was
neither paid in cash or any other mode and it has also not been disclosed either
by the vendor or the purchaser.
(vi) The preliminary investigation and the enquiry report obtained
from the Bureau of Immigration reveals that several documents have been
fraudulently executed in SRO, Thanjavur Joint - I, when the 2nd respondent was
not in India. Several specific transactions have been identified as fraudulent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
transactions including Document Nos.6196, 6197 and 6198 of 2020, 2476 of
2021 and 5337 of 2022, since at the relevant point of time, the defacto
complainant was not present in India.
(vii) The documents executed through the power agents in favour of
the accused persons create serious suspicion, since the immigration records
show that at the relevant point of time, the defacto complainant was not present
in India, however, life certificates have been created and used in the
transactions. It is also found that a fake life certificate was issued by one
Dr.Rajagopal. Thus the fabrication of records and fraud are established.
(viii) The customer application form relating to the
Mobile No.80156 35180 linked to the defacto complainant's PAN and bank
account is purchased by Prakash / A1 and the e-mail id
[email protected] linked thereto was created by Prakash/A1, thereby
enabling unlawful access and manipulation of her financial identity. It was
found that Nagarajan /A4 along with his brother Prakash/ A1 and Revathi /A2
linked the fabricated e-mail id and mobile number to the defacto complainant's
PAN and thus the credentials of the defacto complainant have been misused.
(ix)The auditor of the defacto complainant namely one Ramalingam
during the investigation has stated that all the particulars relating to the income
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
and financial details required for filing the income tax returns of the defacto
complainant for the period between 2018 and 2023 were furnished only by the
accused.
(x)The purported general power of attorney documents executed in
favour of Prakash /A1 vide Document Nos.390 of 2019, 1104 of 2019, 7617
and 7071 of 2022 are in Tamil and general power of attorney executed in favour
of VM.Bhaskaran / A3 is in English, whereas the defacto complainant is not
conversant with the Tamil language, thus it is found that those documents were
obtained without the consent of the defacto complainant.
(x)One of the power holders namely VM.Bhaskaran / A3 is the father
of Revathi /A2 which discloses the nexus and collusive involvement of the
accused persons in the fraudulent transactions.
(xi) One Vidhasree Sumathi /A7 who was acting as the personal
assistant and power agent of the 2nd respondent for managing the day-to-day
affairs of the petrol bunk, in collusion with Prakash /A1, Revathi / A2,
Manikandan / A9, Aadhithya /A10, Kavitha and other accused persons, has
fraudulently misused the cheques of the 2nd respondent. A sum of
Rs.2,02,61,518/- has been siphoned off by the accused from the bank account of
the defacto complainant in HDFC Bank and an amount of 8,25,04,489/- has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
been siphoned off by the accused from the bank account of the defacto
complainant in Federal Bank in a fraudulent manner and the details of the
amounts credited into the bank account of the accused persons are provided
below:
Sl.No Name Amount
in Rs.
1 B.Prakash/A1 12,15,000
2 Revathi, MD of Saket Multi Ventures /A2 63,18,000
3 V.M.Bhaskaran / A3 32,90,000
4 B.Nagarajan / A4 1,01,72,000
5 S.Senthil Kumar/ A5 8,00,000
6 Petricia Joany /A6 43,44,000
7 Vidhyasree Sumathi / A7 9,79,104
8 V.Manikandan/ A9 1,31,12,559
9 B.Aadithya / A10 10,85,000
(xii) One Revathi /A2 has played a vital and dominant role in the
fraudulent transactions. Adthitya /A10 and Manikandan /A9 are the
beneficiaries. Kavitha and Sujatha have acted in collusion in committing the
offence. Senthil Kumar/ A5 was also involved in the fraudulent transactions.
(xiii)The materials collected so far, make out a prima facie case as
against the petitioners and other accused persons for the offences involving
criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and fraudulent misappropriation of
properties. Further, the respondent police has to co-ordinate with multiple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
authorities including the Bureau of Immigration, forensic experts, the income
tax authorities and other departments to unravel the entire fraudulent scheme.
Since the materials prima facie reveal the commission of cognizable offences
the criminal case has been registered and investigation is required to unearth the
truth. Hence, he prays that these petitions be dismissed.
7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent /
de facto complainant has made his submissions as follows:
(i) The 2nd respondent is the wife of one Shaik Serajudeen and is a
Singapore citizen holding Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card. The said Shaik
Serajudeen was a businessman involved in the shipping industry and passed
away on 26.07.2015. Thereafter, the accused persons have approached the
2nd respondent, portraying themselves to be associates of her husband, and
offered to look after her husband's estate and properties for the benefit of the
defacto complainant and her children. However, they have taken advantage of
the defacto complainant's lack of legal knowledge and conspired together to
obtain the signature of the 2nd respondent on various documents using which
they have taken over the properties of her husband.
(ii) Sridhivya Sumathi /A7 approached the defacto complainant as an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
ex-employee of the late Shaik Serajudeen and offered to assist her in clearing
certain loans. The said Sumathi introduced the defacto complainant to one
Konguvel Chellapan /A8, who in turn introduced the other accused with the
petitioner/A2. All the accused were connected by employment in a hotel and
one Revathi/A2 and Patricia /A6 resided with the defacto complainant and
actively canvassed her into believing the accused persons.
(iii) Thereafter, the defacto complainant was made to sign on various
power of attorneys in favour of the accused persons and their companies and
also execute sale deeds to transfer properties to the name of the accused from
the year 2017 till 2022.
(iv) The accused persons have obtained a cheque book signed from
the defacto complainant and have also made her to execute power of attorneys
under the guise of resolving litigations and settling loans. However, the accused
persons misused the same to take over the properties of the 2nd respondent.
(v) The accused are part of a land grabbing syndicate and all the sale
consideration purportedly paid into the bank account of the 2nd respondent, were
siphoned back into the bank accounts of the accused using the signed cheque
book obtained from the 2nd respondent.
(vi) The accused persons have opened various bank accounts in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
name of the 2nd respondent and her children without their knowledge.
A false case for drug related offence was registered as against the
2nd respondent at Singapore at the instigation of the accused, so that they could
dispose of the properties of the 2nd respondent. However, the Singapore Police
were satisfied that the 2nd respondent was not involved in any offence and
initiated investigation to find out, who provided false information regarding her.
(vii) The income tax returns of the 2nd respondent were filed by the
accused persons and she was cheated and defrauded of her properties due to the
schemes of the accused persons.
(viii) The 2nd respondent being an elderly woman and an overseas
Indian Citizen residing in Singapore was not present in India when these
activities took place and hence took some time to gather details regarding the
activities of the accused. Therefore, there was some delay in filing the
complaint as against the accused persons. However, there are clear materials to
establish fraudulent activities on the part of the accused persons and the
2nd respondent has also provided the details of the properties taken over by the
accused persons in her complaint. Hence, he prays that these petitions be
dismissed so that further investigation can be carried out to unearth the
activities of the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
8.This court has considered the rival submissions made and perused
the materials placed on record.
9.The case in Crime No.36 of 2025, has been registered on the
complaint of the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant. The defacto complainant
is a septuagenarian woman and a resident of Singapore holding OCI card.
Her husband died in the year 2015 due to cancer at Chennai. Her husband was
having several properties in and around Thanjavur district, which are involved
in various litigations. It appears one Vidhyasree Sumathi /A7, who was an
associate of her husband at Sinagpore, has approached the defacto complainant
for rendering assistance, introduced A8 and through A8, the other accused have
been introduced to the defacto complainant. The properties of the defacto
complainant were transferred only by power of attorney documents. Through
the power of attorney documents, several other documents have been created
among the accused. There is some connection among the accused as the accused
Nos.2, 3, 4 and 8 are working in the Hotel Le Meridien.
10.As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
recitals in the sale documents have been made as if the properties have been
sold for the purpose of investment in some other properties. However it appears
that sale proceeds deposited in the 2nd respondent's bank accounts and reflected
in the income tax returns was simultaneously transferred from the bank account
of the defacto complainant to the bank accounts of the accused. The respondents
have placed bank account statements of the defacto complainant from the year
2016 till 2026 before this court showing that a sum of Rs.4,12,15,663/- has been
transferred from the account of the defacto complainant to the accused persons.
11.The income tax returns have been placed before this court by A2.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the defacto complainant by referring
to the income tax returns produced by A2 pointed out that the income tax
returns have been filed by the accused without the knowledge of the defacto
complainant, in order to create records, as if the sale proceeds have been
received by the defacto complainant and shown in her income tax returns as
capital gains.
12. The auditor of the defacto complainant has been examined during
investigation and he appears to have stated before the police that the income tax
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
return has been filed only at the instance of A2. It appears in order to get the
OTP number for filing returns, the accused's phone number has been mentioned
in the income tax returns, instead of the defacto complainant's phone number.
13.All these materials make out a prima facie case as against the
accused in Crime No.36 of 2025, which needs to be investigated. At the same
time, the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that this
complaint itself has been foisted in view of the hike in price of the lands and the
petitioners have been coerced to cancel the documents also has to be taken into
account by the investigating agency.
14.The apprehension of the petitioners is based on the subsequent
case registered in Crime No.87 of 2026 on the file of the Tamil University
Police Station. The allegations in Crime No.87 of 2026 is an act of intimidation
and abusement. Admittedly, there is no injury caused to the defacto
complainant. Such a complaint would certainly create an impression as
apprehended by the petitioners and the other accused and this would also divert
the process of investigation in Crime No.36 of 2025. Admittedly, the defacto
complainant has executed certain power documents in favour of the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
through which the other documents have been created. The documents in
question have been executed between 2017 and 2022. For the same, a
complainant has been lodged in the year 2025. There is some delay in filing the
complaint. The residence of the defacto complainant being at Singapore, her age
and apprehensions regarding the accused cannot cure this delay. Apart from this
excuse, the allegation of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defacto
complainant that a criminal case for drug related offence was foisted as against
the defacto complainant is a matter, which needs to be investigated. Further, the
case of the defacto complainant that the documents have been registered when
she was at Singapore using fake life certificates also needs to be investigated by
the respondent police. The investigating agency has also collected materials for
the transfer of huge amounts of money from the bank account of the defacto
complainant to the accounts of the accused. The same also needs to be
investigated. The accused have produced the Income Tax Returns of the
defacto complainant before this court. The auditor of the defacto complainant
has provided a statement claiming that all the information has been provided by
accused No.2 and not the defacto complainant. The mobile numbers of the
accused and their email IDs have been shown in the contact details in the
Income Tax Returns of the defacto complainant which also needs to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
investigated. The investigating agency claims that these Income Tax Returns
were filed by the accused with an intention to create records as if the sale
proceeds from the properties of the defacto complainant were shown in the
Income Tax Returns and thereafter, the amounts have been siphoned away by
the accused. Since a larger issue is involved in Crime No.36 of 2025, this court
is of the opinion that the subsequent case registered in Crime No.87 of 2026
would only divert the issue and would also attribute motive as against the
respondent police.
15.In view of the above discussion,
(i)The petitions in CrlOP(MD)No.7012 of 2026 and
CrlOP(MD)No.7450 of 2026 are dismissed.
(ii)The petition in CrlOP(MD)No.8129 of 2026 is allowed and the
proceedings in Crime No.87 of 2026 on the file of the Tamil University Police
Station is quashed.
(iii)The respondent police, namely the District Crime Branch,
Thanjavur shall not harass the accused in Crime No.36 of 2025 under the guise
of conducting investigation. In the event if they require any materials or
information from the accused, the same may be obtained by written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
communications and by way of registered post. If the accused are not
co-operative and are not furnishing the required documents, adverse inference
may be drawn as against them.
(iv)The respondent police shall provide necessary protection to the
defacto complainant in Crime No.36 of 2025.
(v)The Sub Registrars concerned, immigration authorities, forensic
department and the Income Tax Department are expected to cooperate with the
investigating agency by furnishing the required documents without unnecessary
delay. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.04.2026
DSK
To
1.The Special Sub Inspector of Police,
DCB Police Station,
Thanjavur.
2.The Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Tamil University Police Station,
Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450 and 8129 of 2026
B.PUGALENDHI.J.,
DSK
CRL OP(MD)Nos.7012, 7450
and 8129 of 2026
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
