Madras High Court
Thangaraj vs The State Rep. By on 25 September, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2827 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1288 of 2018
Thangaraj ...Petitioner/Accused No.3
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Maraneri Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.104 of 2015) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Manivannan ...2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in C.C.No.215 of 2017 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi and quash the same insofar
as the petitioner is concerned and pass such further orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and
circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj
For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
***
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.215 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi, as against the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are totally three accused, in which, the petitioner is arrayed as third accused. The petitioner is a registered document writer and his only duty is to draft the documents, which are produced before him. He cannot conduct roving enquiry with respect to title of the property and the same is vested with the registration department. He being a document writer as requested by the first and second accused without any motive he drafted the mortgage deed. He further submitted that in fact, the mortgage was redeemed by the parties thereafter and as such, absolutely no allegation in the charge sheet as against the petitioner. Further, no offence is made out as against the petitioner even according to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that he purchased the property measuring an extent of 1 acre 72 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018 cents from one Gnasekaran by the registered sale deed bearing registration No.3843 of 1999, dated 18.11.1999. His vendor purchased the said property from one Geetha on 26.02.1988. Insofar as the half of the property, namely, 86 cents is concerned, it was originally owned by Ponnazhagu and the first accused on the strength of power of attorney, sold out the said property to my vendor Mrs.Geetha. While that being so, the said property comprised in S.No.633/2 measuring an extend of 15 cents stated to be mortgaged to the de facto complainant and received a sum of Rs.30,000/- with a help of other accused persons. He further submitted that the petitioner being a document writer, he only drafted the mortgage deed in favour of the de facto complainant and received a sum of Rs.30,000/- by the first accused. He further submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioner has to be considered only during the trial.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that there are totally three accused and the petitioner is arrayed as third accused. Though the petitioner is a document writer, he has also colluded with the other accused persons and have fabricated the mortgage deed for the property, which is not owned by the first accused in favour of the 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018 de facto complainant and received a sum of Rs.30,000/-. He further submitted that with the help of A2 and A3, A1 mortgaged the property measuring an extent of 15 cents to the de facto complainant and received a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Thereby, they cheated the de facto complainant and committed the offences under Sections 420, 406, 120(b), 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
6. There are totally three accused and the petitioner is arrayed as third accused. The allegation as against the accused is that the property owned by the de facto complainant ad-measuring 1 acre 72 cents comprised in S.Nos.631/1 and 633/2 is situated at Anaiyur Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The first accused without any title for the said property forged the property ad-measuring 15 cents comprised in the same survey numbers and executed a mortgage deed to the de facto complainant and received a sum of Rs.30,000/- with the help of the second and third accused herein. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, according to the case 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018 of the prosecution, the petitioner is a document writer and he is in no way connected with the alleged transaction between A1 and the de facto complainant. On production of documents by the first accused, the petitioner drafted a mortgage as requested by them. Thereafter, it was registered. Except preparation of the said document, the petitioner has nothing to do with the crime. On perusal of the statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C. from the witnesses, no one has spoken about the role of the petitioner and the first accused has only executed the mortgage deed without any title over the subject property. In fact, now the said mortgage deed is also redeemed on payment of the amount by the cancellation deed, dated 12.05.2017 and registered as document No.2200 of 2017.
7.That apart, the petitioner is not a competent person to verify the genuineness of the document produced by the parties. Before drafting the deed, his duty is only to prepare the document requested by the parties and there is absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioner along with the other accused persons for their conspiracy. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution. The entire process is a clear abuse of process of law as against the petitioner. As such, the 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018 petitioner need not undergo the ordeal of trial.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.215 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone. However, considering the fact that the trial is pending from the year 2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as against the other accused persons.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no vsd 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018 To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.
2.The Inspector of Police, Maraneri Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsd Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2827 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.1288 of 2018 25.09.2019 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in