Madras High Court
M. Anandhan vs Raman on 21 June, 2023
Author: V. Sivagnanam
Bench: V. Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 21.06.2023 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM Crl.R.C.No.292 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.No.2392 of 2023 M. Anandhan .. Petitioner Vs.
1.Raman
2.Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station, Vaniyambadi District. .. Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.2787 of 2022 in C.C.No.103 of 2021, dated 16.12.2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Vaniyambadi, Thirupattur District and allow the criminal revision petition.
For petitioner : Mr. M.P. Jayaprakash
For Respondent : Mr. B. Jawahar for R1
Mr. R. Vinothraja,
Govt. Advocate (crl.side)-R2
Page No.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.2787 of 2022 in C.C.No.103 of 2021, dated 16.12.2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate at Vaniyambadi, Thirupattur District and allow the Criminal Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and the 1st respondent is the accused. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant/petitioner, a case has been registered against the accused persons for the offences under sections 120 B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506(i) r/w. Sec.34 of IPC in Cr.No.78 of 2011. The case has been taken on file in C.C.No.103 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Thirupattur District. Pending trial, the 1st respondent/accused filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to forward the Gift deed, dated 03.01.1983 having document No.14 of 1983 executed by the defacto complainant's mother Chinnammal, wife of Manicka Mudaliyar in favour of defacto complainant/petitioner for comparison of signatures to the Director, Forensic Page No.2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Science Department, alleging that the abovesaid gift deed contains forged signatures of Chinnammal. The trial court erroneously allowed that application overlooking the legal principle that the signature in the Gift Deed or settlement deed cannot be questioned by the third persons except the settler. Therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside and thus he prayed to allow this criminal revision.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the second respondent supporting the order of the trial, pleaded to dismissal of this Criminal Revision Petition.
4. Perusal of the impugned order and the records, the fact reveals that the defacto complainant is one Anandhan, son of Manicka Mudaliyar. He gave a complaint against A1 to A5 alleging that A1 with the help of A3, created a sale deed in favour of A3 and Settlement deed in favour of A5, who is son of A1 in respect of the properties belonging to petitioner under earlier settlement deed dated 03.01.1983 executed by mother of petitioner Chinnammal. Pursuant to which, a case has been registered in Cr.No.78 of Page No.3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2011 for the offences under sections 420, 463, 465 IPC r/w.506(i) IPC. After investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.103 of 2021. Pending trial, the accused/ 2nd respondent filed an application under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the gift deed dated 3.1.1983, bearing document No.14 of 1983 executed by the defacto complainant's mother Chinnammal, in favour of the defacto complainant, for comparing the signatures in the Gift Deed. He alleged that the signatures found in the Gift Deed was forged by the third persons. The trial court allowed the application to find out the genuineness of the signature of Chinna Ammal in the gift deed. The settled legal principle is that the signatures in the gift deed/settlement deed cannot be disputed by third persons, except the settler. The settler alone is competent to question the signatures in the settlement deed/gift deed and the third persons are not competent to dispute the signatures in the document. The trial court without considering the legal principle stated above, over looking the same, allowed the application, which, in the considered opinion of this court, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Page No.4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Thirupattur District in C.M.P.No.2787 of 2022 in C.C.No.103 of 2021, dated 16.12.2022 is hereby set aside and the criminal revision is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Judicial Magistrate at Vaniyambadi, Thirupattur District is directed to dispose of C.C.No.103 of 2021, pending on his file within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
21.06.2023 msr Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Thirupattur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station, Vaniyambadi District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis V. SIVAGNANAM, J msr Crl.R.C.No.292 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.No.2392 of 2023 Page No.6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21.06.2023 Page No.7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis