Madras High Court
K.J.Shobana vs The State Represented By Its on 25 August, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.No.14046 of 2024
K.J.Shobana ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Represented By Its,
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepery, Chennai.
(Cr.No.116 of 2019)
2. Poornavathi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 read with 442 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order passed by
of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CBCID
Metro Cases Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.30594 of 2023 dated 08.08.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.S.N.Subramani
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.30594 of 2023 dated 08.08.2024 on the file of the Metropolitan Page 1 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CBCID Metro Cases Egmore, Chennai, thereby impleading the petitioner as an accused in C.C.No.5606 of 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the second respondent had purchased the property bearing Plot No.81, Central Excise and Customs Colony, Okiyam Thuraipakkam, Sholinganallur Taluk, comprised in S.No.405/10, ad-measuring 1920 sq.ft., registered vide Document No.3579/1986 dated 17.12.1986. After purchase, patta was issued in his favour and all the revenue records were mutated in his name. Her husband name is V.Ranga Rao. He died on 14.09.1998, leaving behind the petitioner, son and daughter as his legal heirs. After his demise, the entire original documents were in possession of the petitioner. While being so, utilizing the said circumstances, the second accused impersonated the complainant's husband and executed Power of Attorney in favour of the first accused in respect of the above said property. In turn, the first accused had sold out the property in favour of the 5 th accused viz., the petitioner herein under a registered sale deed dated 15.07.2015, vide Document No.5494 of 2015, for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,05,60,000/-. Thereafter, on 16.07.2015, the said property was mortgaged Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 with HDFC Bank by deposit of the memorandum of title deed, vide Document No.5525 of 2015 for a sum of Rs.60,25,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.116 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. After completion of entire investigation, final report was filed. As per the final report, the petitioner was deleted and A1 to A4 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.
4. Thereafter, the trial was commenced and the prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 7. The second respondent herein was examined as PW.1. On the strength of her deposition, she filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.30594 of 2023 to implead the petitioner as 5th accused in C.C.No.5606 of 2023. It was allowed and aggrieved by the same, this revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent purchaser. She has nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. She did not have any conspiracy with other accused. Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 Even according to the case of the prosecution, the second accused is the impersonator, who impersonated the husband of the second respondent and executed Power of Attorney in favour of the first accused. In turn, the first accused executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. The third and fourth accused stood as witnesses to the Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of the first accused. The petitioner had paid valid sale consideration of Rs.80 Lakhs in favour of the first accused and also a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as registration charges and stamp duty. On 16.07.2015, by mortgaging the said property with HDFC Bank, availed loan of Rs.60 Lakhs. Even till today, the petitioner is paying the installment and she had paid nearly Rs.73 Lakhs by way of 120 installments. She is a real aggrieved person. Therefore, the first respondent had rightly deleted the name of the petitioner from all the charges. Even on persual of all the witnesses who was already examined as PWs.1 to 7, no one whispered about the role played by the petitioner, except the purchase of the subject property. She is also ready and willing to cancel the sale deed executed in her favour.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the property was originally purchased by her husband. After the Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 demise of her husband, she was impersonated by A2 with connivance of the first accused, including the petitioner and had executed Power of Attorney in favour of the first accused on 08.06.2015. Immediately within a period of one month, on 15.07.2015, the first accused executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. In turn, the very next day viz., on 16.07.2015 by way of memorandum of title deeds, the petitioner mortgaged the subject property and availed loan to the tune of Rs.60 Lakhs from HDFC Bank. Therefore, the petitioner also actively played role and committed the offence. Hence, the Trial Court had rightly impleaded the petitioner as 5th accused.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that though the petitioner was deleted in the original final report, after recording the deposition of PWs.1 to 7, there are incriminating material to implead the petitioner as accused. Therefore, the second respondent filed an application under Section 319 of Crl.P.C and it was rightly allowed by the Trial Court and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. Originally, there were five accused in Crime No.116 of 2019. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report as against A1 to A4 by deleting the name of the petitioner from FIR. The charge is as follows:-
“ ,e;j R{H;epiyapy; vjpupfs; Tl;L rjpapy; <Lgl;L nkw;go brhj;ij mgfhpf;f jpl;lkplL ; . A2 vjpupahd Ms;khwhl;l egh; (V. u';fh uht;) vd;gtu; A1 vjpup R.uh$d; vd;gtUf;F bghJ mjpfhuk; tH';fpaJ nghy; Mtz vz;/4342-2015 ehs;/08/06/2015 go ePyh';fiu rhh; gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; bghJ mjpfhuk; tH';fpa[s;shh;/ A3 vjpup fph;j;jpf;. j-bg/ jpdfud; kw;Wk; A4 vjpup kjd;uh$;. j- bg/uj;jpdk; Mfpath;fs; gjpt[ mYtyfj;jpy; nghypahd Ms;khwhl;l egh; (V. u';fh uht;) vd;gtiu cz;ikah V. u';fh uht; vd;W milahsk; fhl;o rhl;rp ifbahg;gkpl;Ls;sdh;/ gpdd ; h; nkw;go nghypahd bghJ mjpfhu Mtzj;ij gad;gLj;jp nkw;go brhj;ij A1 vjpup R.uh$d; vd;gtu; K.J nrhgdh vd;gtUf;F fpiua Mtz vz;/5494-2015d; go 15/07/2015k; njjp ePyh';fiu rhh;
gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; itj;J fpiuak; bra;J
bfhLj;Js;shh;/ mjd; bjhlh;r;rpahf nkw;go
nghypMtz';fis gad;gLj;jp K.J nrhgdh vd;gth; nkw;go Mtzj;ij HDFC t';fp. mz;zhrhiy fpisapy; mlkhdk; itj;J mjid Mtz vd;/5525-2015 go ePyh';fiu rhh; gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;J gzk; bgw;Ws;shh;/ A5 vjpupahf fUjg;gl;l K.J nrhgdh vd;gtupd; t';fp Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 fzf;Ffisa[k; mjpy; eilbgw;w gzg;gl;Lthlh Mfpatw;wpid bgw;W g[yd;tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;ljpy; K.J nrhgdh vd;gth; nkw;go A1 to A4 vjpupfs; bra;j Tl;Lrjpia mwpahky; mwpahf;fpuak; bgw;Ws;shh; vd ePUgzkhdjhy; K.J nrhgdh vd;gtiu vjpupahf fUjhky; rhl;rpahf Vw;W thf;FK:yk; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/”
10. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was shown as innocent purchaser from A1 and she did not do any conspiracy with other accused. She is a stranger to A1 to A4 and she is not even connected with any accused. In fact, she is residing in Australia. Just one month before the date of purchase, she arrived India and searched for properties. A1 to A4 being habitual offenders in land grabbing matters, offered to sell the property in favour of the second respondent. The second respondent had spent a sum of Rs.90 Lakhs to purchase the subject property. Thereafter, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner registered vide Document No.5494 of 2015 on 15.07.2015. Immediately, the petitioner mortgaged the said property by way of a memorandum of deposit of title deed and availed loan to the tune of Rs.60 Lakhs and paid to the first accused. The loan was availed to repay the same by 180 installments. Accordingly, the petitioner is regularly paying her installment even till now for a period of 120 months and paid a sum of Rs.59 Lakhs to the banker viz., HDFC Bank. If the petitioner had also colluded with other accused, she would not have availed any loan and to pay a sale consideration in favour Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 of the first accused. In fact, she is also paying monthly installment regularly without fail even till today.
11. While being so, the second respondent was examined as PW.1 before the Trial Court. A perusal of her evidence also revealed that she did not even whisper about the role played by the petitioner during the impersonation or while executing the sale deed by the other accused, except purchase of the property. Further, PWs.2 to 7 also did not even whisper about the specific role played by the petitioner, except purchase of the property. It shows that the petitioner is an innocent purchaser and she did not do anything with other accused, while purchasing the property. In fact, it was purchased in the year 2015 by the registered sale deed dated 15.07.2015. After verification, the complaint was lodged in the year 2019. Therefore, there is absolutely no incriminating material to implead the petitioner as accused. The petitioner, being a bonafide purchaser is also ready and willing to cancel the sale deed executed in her favour.
12. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 2014 3 SCC 92 in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and others, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that at the time of taking cognizance, the Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against accused. It was further held as follows:-
“ 112. However, there is a great difference with regard to a person who has been discharged. A person who has been discharged stands on a different footing than a person who was never subjected to investigation or if subjected to, but not charge-sheeted. Such a person has stood the stage of inquiry before the Court and upon judicial examination of the material collected during investigation, the court had come to the conclusion that there is not even a prima facie case to proceed against such person. Generally, the stage of evidence in trial is merely proving the material collected during investigation and therefore, there is not much change as regards the material existing against the person so discharged. Therefore, there must exist compelling circumstances to exercise such power. The court should keep in mind that the witness when giving evidence against the person so discharged, is not doing so merely to seek revenge or is naming him at the behest of someone or for such other extraneous considerations. The court has to be circumspect in treating such evidence and try to separate the chaff from the grain. If after such careful examination of the evidence, the Court is of the opinion that there does exist evidence to proceed against the person so discharged, it may take steps but only in accordance with Section 398 Cr.P.C without resorting to the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C directly.”
13. Thus, it is clear that there does exist evidence to proceed against Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 the person so discharged, it may take steps but only in accordance with Section 398 Cr.P.C without resorting to the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C directly.
14. It is relevant to extract the proviso to Section 398 of Cr.P.C as follows:-
“ Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.” Accordingly, no Court shall make any direction under Section 398 of Cr.P.C for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.
15. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner was not served any notice. Directly on the complaint lodged by the second respondent under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, allowed the same to implead the petitioner as 5 th accused. Though the petitioner was made a party to the said petition, the petitioner was not issued with any notice and she was not heard by the Trial Court.
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024
16. Therefore, it is a clear violation of provision under Section 398 of Cr.P.C. That apart, as stated supra, there is absolutely, no incriminating material to proceed as against the petitioner for the charges under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.
17. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.30594 of 2023 dated 08.08.2024 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CBCID Metro Cases Egmore, Chennai, is hereby set aside.
18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, on condition that the petitioner shall execute cancellation of sale deed dated 15.07.2015 vide Document No.5494 of 2015 and handover the same to the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the order passed by the Trial Court shall stand automatically restored. It is also made clear that the registering authority is directed to entertain the cancellation of sale deed to be submitted by the petitioner and register the same in accordance with law. Consequently, Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.08.2025 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 To
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CBCID Metro Cases Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn Crl.R.C.No.1706 of 2024 25.08.2025 Page 14 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:52 pm )