Madras High Court
R.Sudalimuthu vs ) The State Rep. By on 20 November, 2019
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9352 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9352 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6352 of 2017
R.Sudalimuthu ... Petitioners/Accused No.1
Vs.
1) The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
S.S.Colony Police Station,
Madurai District.
Cr.No.630 of 2017 ...Respondent/Complainant
2) B.Anbarasan ...Respondent/ De facto
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned First Information Report in Crime No.630 of 2017 dated
31.05.2017 on the file of the Respondent No.1 police station offences
under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 506(i) of IPC and quash the
same as illegal as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathiroy
For R-1 : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 : Mr.K.Muraleedharan
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9352 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.630 of 2017, pending investigation before the first respondent police.
2. The allegation that has been made in the complaint by the second respondent is to the effect that one Ramasamy Pillai had executed a Will in favour of the second respondent and his cousin brother Jeniva on 03.06.2009. This Will was also registered before the Sub Registrar office. The said Ramasamy Pillai fell ill from the year 2014 onwards and he was not in a conscious state. He died on 12.03.2014. While so, in the year 2017, there was a discussion among the family members for the purpose of sharing the property. At that point of time, it came to the knowledge of the second respondent that a Will executed earlier on 03.06.2009 was cancelled and a new Will has been registered on 27.02.2014 and it was stated that the property was bequeathed for life to his wife and the vested remainder was to go to the children. The second respondent on coming to know of the Will, enquired and found that the Will has been created with the connivance of the Sub Registrar and that the Will did not contain the signature of the deceased Ramasamy Pillai and it only contained the thumb impression. Therefore, a complaint came to be given before the respondent police. Since F.I.R. was not http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9352 of 2017 registered, a petition was filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate Court and pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, an F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioner and the Sub Registrar, who had registered the Will.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Will in question is a registered Will and a reading of the Will shows that the property has been bequeathed to the wife of the deceased Ramasamy Pillai during her life time and therefore, the vested remainder was given to the children. The learned counsel submitted that the complaint has been given on the basis of a mere suspicion. If at all the second respondent wants to establish his right over the earlier Will that was said to have been executed in his favour, he has to approach the competent Civil Court and a subsequent Will can never be called as a false document. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the F.I.R. requires interference by this Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent submitted that the cancellation of the earlier Will dated 03.06.2009 and the creation of the new Will dated 27.02.2014 are clearly fabricated documents. The learned counsel submitted that the deceased Ramasamy Pillai was in the habit of signing documents and what was found in the cancellation deed and the fabricated Will http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9352 of 2017 was only a thumb impression. Therefore, there is a strong suspicion with regard to the genuineness of these documents and only after investigation, it will be known as to whether these documents are genuine. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that no interference is required in the F.I.R. registered by the respondent police.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that the respondent police did not initially register an F.I.R. and the F.I.R. itself came to be registered pursuant to the directions given by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submitted that some time limit can be fixed for the completion of the investigation.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials available on record.
7. The documents in question are the registered documents. The cancellation deed and the subsequent Will what was executed by the testator Ramasamy Pillai cannot be doubted merely on the ground that it contains his thumb impression. The claim of the second respondent is through a Will that is said to have been http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9352 of 2017 executed in his favour on 03.06.2009 which was subsequently cancelled. If the second respondent wants to establish his right over the property through the said Will, he should approach the competent Civil Court and establish his right. It is only the competent Civil Court which can decide upon the so called suspicious circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the earlier Will and the execution of the fresh Will by the testator Ramasamy Pillai. This is an exercise which cannot be done by the police.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the complaint itself has been given on mere suspicion without any material. By no stretch, the cancellation deed and the subsequent Will dated 27.02.2014 can be called as false documents. The circumstances that prevailed during the execution of those documents will have to be established only during the trial before the Civil Court. By virtue of this Will, the testator has given a life interest to his wife and the vested remainder to the children. Unfortunately in this case, the Sub Registrar has been made as an accused even without a preliminary enquiry.
9. Looking at the case from any angle, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the investigation by the respondent police will tantamount to the abuse of process of law. A dispute which is purely civil has been given a criminal colour and it http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9352 of 2017 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
sts requires interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. In the result, the First Information Report in Crime No.630 of 2017, dated 31.05.2017, pending on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6352 of 2017 is closed.
20.11.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sts
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
S.S.Colony Police Station,
Madurai District.
Cr.No.630 of 2017
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9352 of 2017
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/6