[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.V.S.Veeramani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.18716 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18716 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.11616 of 2024
1. R.V.S.Veeramani
2. V.P.Sankar
3. N.Selvaraj
... Petitioner/Accused No.
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep . by the Inspector of Police,
Anti-Land Grabbing Special Wing,
District Crime Branch,
Trichy District.
2.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Trichy District.
(Cr.No.8 of 2014).
.... Respondents / Complainant
3. R.Varatharajan ... Respondent /
De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned Charge
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
Crl.OP(MD)No.18716 of 2024
Sheet in C.C.No.74/2024 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Manapparai, and quash the same as illegal in so far as
the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
For R-3 : Mr.J.Lawrence
ORDER
Preface:
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking to call
for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.74 of 2024 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, and to quash
the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
2. The charge sheet arises out of Crime No.8 of 2014 and alleges
commission of offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 423, 468, 471,
294(b) and 506(i) IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
3. The controversy emanates from a long-standing factional
dispute between two groups claiming to represent “Naidu Mahajana
Sangam” in respect of a commercial complex bearing Door Nos.5A to
5F situated at Mariamman Kovil Street, Manapparai.
Case of the prosecution:
4. The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the final report, is
that the 3rd respondent claims to be the President of “Manapparai
Naidu Mahajana Sangam,” and that the subject property is a
community property originally functioning as a Bhajanai Madam and
later developed into a commercial complex with community funds.
5. It is alleged that after the demise of Thiru. R. Veerasamy, who
was the earlier President of the Sangam, the first petitioner, in
collusion with his mother (who allegedly held a position in the
Manapparai Municipality during the relevant period), produced legal
heirship and “no objection” documents before the municipal and
revenue authorities as though the property was private/family
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
6. According to the prosecution, by projecting the property as
private property, the petitioners dishonestly secured mutation
entries and thereafter dealt with tenants and rental advances. On the
basis of these allegations, the police filed the impugned charge sheet.
Case of the petitioners:
7. The petitioners contend that the entire dispute is civil in
nature and arises from rivalry between two factions claiming
management of the same Sangam. It is submitted that the property
has always stood in the name of “Naidu Mahajana Sangam,” and
that after the demise of Thiru. Veerasamy on 27.11.2010, only the
name of the President was substituted in municipal and revenue
records.
8. The petitioners rely upon the decree in O.S.No.99 of 1995 on
the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai,
wherein the subject property was declared to belong absolutely to
“Naidu Mahajana Sangam,” represented by its President Thiru.
Veerasamy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
9. It is further contended that no ownership column was altered;
no title deed was forged; no conveyance was executed; and no
document transferring ownership to any individual has been
produced. The petitioners also point out that the building tax
receipts issued after 2011 continue to reflect “President, Naidu
Mahajana Sangam,” thereby demonstrating that the ownership
remained with the Sangam. With respect to Sections 294(b) and
506(i) IPC, it is contended that the allegations are vague, no specific
abusive words are mentioned, no public place element is shown, and
no specific threat is described.
Submissions of the 3rd respondent:
10. The 3rd respondent contends that the Sangam was originally
unregistered and later registered in 2010 as “Manapparai Naidu
Mahajana Sangam.” It is alleged that the petitioners used legal
heirship documents and affidavits from family members to create an
impression that the property belonged to the family of the first
petitioner. It is further alleged that rental advances were collected
and misappropriated. According to the 3rd respondent, the materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case requiring
trial.
Submissions of the State:
11. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that
the investigation is complete, statements of witnesses have been
recorded, and documents have been collected. It is contended that
disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a petition under
Section 528 BNSS.
Point for Consideration:
12. The point for consideration is whether the materials placed
along with the charge sheet, even if accepted at face value, disclose
the commission of the alleged offences, or whether continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process warranting
interference under Section 528 BNSS.
13. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully
perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
Analysis:
14. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is intended to
prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
While exercising such jurisdiction at the stage of considering a
prayer for quashing of a final report, neither the Court does
undertake a mini-trial nor it does assess the probative value of the
materials collected, nor does it adjudicate upon seriously disputed
questions of fact.
15. However, where the allegations, on a plain reading of the
First Information Report and the charge sheet, unmistakably
disclose a vexatious, frivolous, or mala fide prosecution, the Court is
not denuded of its power. In such cases, the Court is duty-bound to
examine the materials in their proper context, to read between the
lines of the allegations, and to discern whether the criminal process
has been set in motion for oblique or ulterior purposes. The Court
may look into the surrounding circumstances emerging from the
record, not to weigh evidence, but to ascertain whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
continuation of proceedings would amount to a manifest abuse of
process warranting interference. If the substratum of the dispute is
purely civil and the criminal law has been invoked to exert pressure
in a civil contest, the Court would be justified in exercising its
inherent powers.
16. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the
petitioners is that the subject property admittedly stands in the
name of “Naidu Mahajana Sangam” and that the only alteration
effected subsequent to the demise of the then President was a
substitution of the name of the office-bearer representing the
Sangam. According to the petitioners, a mere change in the name of
the President, without any alteration in the ownership column
reflecting the Sangam as the owner, cannot, by itself, constitute the
offences of forgery or cheating. However, the gravamen of the
prosecution case, as projected by the defacto complainant and
reflected in the counter affidavit as well as the materials collected
during the investigation, is not confined to the narrow question as to
“who is the President.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
17. The allegation is that certain entries before the municipal
and revenue authorities were procured by producing documents
such as legal heirship or succession certificates and “no objection”
statements from family members, thereby allegedly creating an
impression that the property partakes the character of private or
family property, and that, on such footing, the property was dealt
with vis-à-vis tenants and rental income. The petitioners would
contend that such documents were furnished only for the limited
administrative purpose of mutating the name of the office-bearer
representing the Sangam, consequent upon the death of the previous
President, and not with any intention to assert private title or to
appropriate the property as personal property. Whether such
explanation is acceptable or otherwise necessarily involves
appreciation of evidence, examination of the applications submitted
to the authorities, scrutiny of the supporting documents produced,
examination of the officials concerned, and evaluation of the
surrounding circumstances.
18. It is pertinent to note that in O.S.No.99 of 1995 on the file of
the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai, it has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
declared that the property bearing Door Nos.5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and
5F comprised in T.S.No.76, Ward No.3, Mariammal Kovil Street,
Manapparai Town, is the absolute property of “Naidu Mahajana
Sangam,” represented by its then President, Thiru. Veerasamy.
Consequent thereto, the patta stood in the name of “Naidu Mahajana
Sangam,” represented by its President Thiru. Veerasamy. Thiru.
Veerasamy admittedly passed away on 27.11.2010. Even according
to the defacto complainant, as reflected in the F.I.R. and the charge
sheet, upon the demise of Thiru. Veerasamy, his son Thiru.
Veeramani, the first petitioner herein, stepped into the position of
President and assumed the administration of the affairs of “Naidu
Mahajana Sangam.”
19. The materials placed on record indicate that, after the
demise of Thiru. Veerasamy, the petitioners made necessary
applications before the municipal and revenue authorities seeking
substitution of the name of the deceased President with that of
Thiru. Veeramani, in his capacity as President of the Sangam, on
31.05.2011.The building tax receipts issued by the Manapparai
Municipality reveal that the assessment continued in the name of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
“President, Naidu Mahajana Sangam” on various dates, including
19.09.2011, 15.03.2016, 13.11.2016, 13.03.2018 and 25.03.2019.
These documents, on their face, do not reflect any change in the
ownership column from the Sangam to any individual.
20. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that another
society under the name “Manapparai Naidu Mahajana Sangam,”
bearing Registration No.47 of 2010, came to be registered on
03.03.2010 under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975,
by Thiru. V.P. Sankar, Thiru. Varatharajan and others. One of the
office-bearers of the said registered society, namely Thiru.
Varatharajan, filed W.P.(MD)No.1869 of 2014 seeking a direction to
the Commissioner, Manapparai Municipality, to alter the property
tax assessment and Town Survey Register entries in respect of the
very same properties by removing the name of the first petitioner. By
order dated 20.03.2017, this Court closed the said writ petition,
granting liberty to work out the remedy before the competent civil
Court, upon recording the submission that a civil suit had already
been instituted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
21. Further, another civil suit in O.S.No.262 of 2020 has been
instituted before the learned Subordinate Judge’s Court by the first
petitioner, representing “Naidu Mahajana Sangam” as its President,
against “Manapparai Naidu Mahajana Sangam,” represented by
Thiru.V.P. Sankar and others, in respect of the very same subject
properties. The said civil suit is stated to be pending adjudication. It
is in the backdrop of these parallel civil proceedings and factional
claims between two entities bearing similar nomenclature that the
present quash petition has emerged, at the instance of the defacto
complainant representing the rival “Manapparai Naidu Mahajana
Sangam” faction.
22. The above facts on discernment would throw light on the
facts that: (i )There is no material to show that the ownership column
was altered from the Sangam to any individual. (ii) The municipal tax
receipts produced reveal that the assessment continued in the name
of “President, Naidu Mahajana Sangam” even after the demise of
Thiru. Veerasamy. (iii) The materials relied upon in the charge sheet
do not demonstrate that the property stood mutated in the name of
the first petitioner as owner. (iv) Mutation entries, even assuming
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
irregularity, do not confer title, but they are revenue records for fiscal
purposes. (v) The core of the dispute appears to be whether the first
petitioner was legitimately functioning as President of the Sangam,
an issue presently pending in civil proceedings including O.S.No.262
of 2020.
23. For an offence under Section 468 IPC, there must be forgery
for the purpose of cheating. For Section 471 IPC, there must be use
of a forged document as genuine. The charge sheet does not disclose
any forged title deed or fabricated conveyance altering ownership.
Production of legal heirship documents for substitution of President’s
name does not, by itself, amount to making a “false document”
within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. In the absence of a forged
document altering title, the essential ingredients of Sections 468 and
471 IPC are not attracted.
24. For Section 420 IPC, there must be dishonest inducement
leading to delivery of property. The charge sheet does not
demonstrate that any person was induced to part with property on
the basis of a forged representation of ownership. Section 423 IPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
requires fraudulent execution of transfer. No such transfer document
is shown. At best, the allegations indicate internal disputes regarding
management and collection of rent matters amenable to civil
adjudication.
25. Conspiracy presupposes an agreement to commit an illegal
act. When the foundational offences themselves are not prima facie
made out, the allegation of conspiracy cannot independently survive.
26. The charge sheet does not specify the exact obscene words
allegedly uttered. There is no material to show that the occurrence
took place in a public place. There is no clear description of threat
sufficient to attract Section 506(i) IPC. These allegations are vague
and omnibus.
27. W.P.(MD) No.1869 of 2014 filed by the 3rd respondent faction
was closed granting liberty to approach Civil Court. O.S.No.262 of
2020 is pending between the rival Sangams concerning the very
same property. The dispute concerns control and representation of
the Sangam and its property, matters squarely within the domain of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
Civil Courts. The criminal prosecution appears to be a continuation
of the factional rivalry. Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue
would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used as a
weapon in a civil dispute.
28. Upon a careful examination of the materials in the charge
sheet, this Court is of the considered view that the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged are not disclosed. The substratum
of the dispute is civil in nature, and the invocation of criminal law in
the present case amounts to abuse of process.
29. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in
C.C.No.74 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Manapparai, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are
concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
confined to the criminal proceedings and shall not influence the
pending civil proceedings.
27.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
Sml
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Manapparai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Anti-Land Grabbing Special Wing,
District Crime Branch,
Trichy District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Trichy District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
27.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:42 pm )
