Madras High Court
Akila Vijayakumar vs The State Represented By
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On : 19.07.2021
Delivered On : 05.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.901 of 2021
1.Akila Vijayakumar
2.Vijayakumar ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 5
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Team - 27, Forgery Prevention Wing,
CCB-I, Vepery,
Chennai. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Uma Ravi ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime
No.284 of 2020 on the file of the first Respondent Police and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Ravikumar
For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran (for R.1)
Government Advocate
Mr.V.Balakrishnan (for R.2)
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.284 of 2020 pending on the file of the first Respondent.
2.When the case came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had been arrayed as Accused based on the Complaint given by the sister of the first Petitioner to the Forgery Prevention Wing. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the first Petitioner and second Respondent are the daughters of the former Minister G.Bhuvarahan (Late) in the Cabinet of Kumaraswami Kamaraj (Late) Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He had purchased the property and he had alleged to have executed a Will in favour of the first Petitioner. There were two attesting witnesses to the Will wherein one of the witness is died.
3.As per the FIR in Crime No.284 of 2020, the first Petitioner herein had arrayed as Accused No.1, Accused No.2 is the attesting witness, Accused No.3 is the daughter of Accused No.1 and Accused No.4 is the son of Accused No.1. It is to be noted that the T.O.S.No.1 of 2018 had been 2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 filed before the original side of this Court and the same is pending. There was an application in A.No.4732 of 2019 filed by the first Petitioner and the matter was referred to the Hand Writing Expert for comparing the signature of Late G.Bhuvarahan in the Passport of the late G.Bhuvarahan and other documents that were referred to the Court by appointing Advocate Commissioner for forwarding the disputed signature and comparing the signature in the admitted documents to the Forensic Department and for filing the Forensic Report before this Court. Accordingly, the report was addressed to the Registry (Original Side). When that was the case, when the report was received in the Court, the first Petitioner herein had filed an Application in A.No.9572 of 2019 seeking permission of this Court to peruse the originals sent to the Forensic Department for verification. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge who was then presiding over the Jurisdiction had permitted the second Respondent/Complainant herein and their Counsel to peruse the records. Based on the perusal of records, the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert that was received by the Court was taken notice by the second Respondent, which is against the principles regarding conduct of Civil Proceedings by the Court of law. Without getting permission from the Court, the second Respondent had preferred a 3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 Complaint based on the forensic report. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the findings given by the Forensic Expert is not an evidence. It is a subject evidence before the trial proceedings either in Criminal Court or Civil Court and the findings of the learned Single Judge in T.O.S.No. 1 of 2018 is not final. While so, she had proceeded to harass the first Petitioner by lodging this Complaint based on which the FIR had been registered. The basic subject dispute is between sisters, both are daughters of late G.Bhuvarahan regarding the claim of the forged Will or claim over the property.
4. Therefore, the subject dispute pending on the original side of this Court was referred during the pendency of the Suit. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that during the trial, the learned Judge arrived at a clear conclusion that one of the parties in the proceedings had committed fraud and forgery. It is for the learned Judge to pass appropriate orders to refer the matter to criminal prosecution. While so, instead of waiting for the conclusion of the trial, the second Respondent had proceeded with the Criminal complaint, based on which the FIR in Crime No.284 of 2020 on the file of the first Respondent was registered. Therefore, he seeks 4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 to quash the FIR on the ground that a Civil dispute had been converted into a Criminal case by the second Respondent which attracts the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335:1992 SCC (cri) 426 in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal.
5.In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the following rulings:
5.1. In the case of Sardool Singh and another Vs. Nasib Kaur, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 146 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“1. Special leave granted. Heard both the sides.
2. A civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the respondent is that no will was executed whereas the contention of the appellants is that a will has been executed by the testator. A case for grant of probate is also pending in the court of learned District Judge, Rampur.
The civil court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the will. The matter is sub judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the will is being tested before a civil court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and quash the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh in the case entitled Smt Nasib Kaur v. Sardool Singh. This will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the civil court comes to the conclusion that the will is a forged one. We of course refrain from 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 expressing any opinion as regards genuineness or otherwise of the Will in question as there is no occasion to do so and the question is wide open before the lower courts.” 5.2. In the case of M.Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana and another, reported in (2019)10 SCC 373, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“23.OS No. 239 of 2004 has already been filed by the complainant against her brother, Accused 1 and her three sisters inter alia for partition and separate possession which is stated to be pending. As such, the documents alleged to be fraudulent in the complaint will fall for consideration in the said suit. A possibility of contradictory finding in civil proceeding as against criminal proceedings cannot be ruled out. Though, the complainant had filed Writ Petitions Nos. 23017 and 23672 of 2009 to restrain construction on the plot in question, the same was dismissed on 28-10-2009 [Fatima Hasna v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine AP 1003. See also Karima Siddiqua Fazilathunnisa v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Hyderabad, 2009 SCC OnLine AP 1004] . However, there is no mention with regard to the same in the complaint. This Court in Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur [Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur, 1987 Supp SCC 146 :
1987 SCC (Cri) 672] observed as follows: (SCC p. 147, para 2) “2. A civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the respondent is that no will was executed whereas the contention of the appellants is that a will has been executed by the testator. A case for grant of probate is also pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Rampur. The civil court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the will. The matter is sub judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the will is being tested before a civil court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and quash the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 Chandigarh in Nasib Kaur v. Sardool Singh. This will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the civil court comes to the conclusion that the will is a forged one. We of course refrain from expressing any opinion as regards genuineness or otherwise of the will in question as there is no occasion to do so and the question is wide open before the lower courts.”
25. The learned Judge himself in para 8, after observing that it is nobody's case that the signatures on the documents in question are forged or anybody has impersonated for the purpose of cheating, goes on to observe thus:
“8. … The allegation in a nutshell in this regard is that Accused 1 is not the absolute owner of the properties, but one of the co-owners or co-sharers along with the de facto complainant and other sisters of them and he falsely claimed as if he is the owner for purpose of cheating by using as if genuine forged and fabricated documents of so-called will and so-called deed of confirmation. The so-called will is of the year 1950 and the so-called deed of confirmation is of year 1989-1990 and the alleged oral gift prior to that is of 1966.…” Therefore, in the light of the above rulings, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash the FIR.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed the line of arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners stating that the first Petitioner herein, without obtaining Probate of Will, had executed the Settlement Deed dated 29.12.2014 vide Document No.691 of 2015 in favour of her son and daughter. Based on the findings of the Sub Registrar concerned, she gave an undertaking that she will proceed with the Probate 7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 proceedings and file an appropriate Petition. Based on the appeal filed by the second Respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration ordered to initiate criminal proceedings against the first Petitioner under Section 83 of the Registration Act. Therefore, already a complaint was preferred by the Inspector General of Registration. While so, the complaint preferred by the second Respondent was also taken and clubbed together and the Special Team regarding Forgery and Fraudulent Documents Provisions Wing had proceeded with the investigation.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) also invited the attention of this Court to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate from Accused No.2 and read it from the averments in the statement of the said Accused No.2 which is neither under torture or under force, it was voluntary. It is his submission that after the death of the G.Bhuvarahan, he visited the home of the G.Bhuvarahan. At that time, the son-in-law/Vijayakumar informed him that the G.Bhuvarahan during his life time executed a Will in favour of the first Petitioner herein, in which already one attesting witness affixed signature and requested the Accused No.2/K.Illango also to affix his signature, for 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 which Illango expressed apprehension. The said Vijayakumar/husband of the first Petitioner herein consoled him stating nothing to worry, it is only formality and the Will will be subjected to the Probate before the High Court. On his undertaking, Accused No.2 believed the same and affixed his signature. That is the content of the proceedings under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
8. The learned Counsel for the second Respondent/De-facto complainant submitted that the properties were purchased through Sale Deed by G.Bhuvarahan in the year 1984 and 1985. Subsequently, he had executed a Settlement Deed dated 10.01.2008 vide Document No.17 of 2008, in favour of his three daughters and reserved life interest over the property in favour of himself and his wife. At that time, the first Petitioner and her family were residents of Singapore. Subsequently, after the death of G.Bhuvarahan, the first Petitioner herein claiming title to the property, as though, G.Bhuvarahan had executed the Will in her favour. Therefore, the Petitioners suspecting foul play, thus, preferred a complaint. Meanwhile, the first Petitioner herself had executed the Settlement Deed in favour of her children, based on the Will alleged to have been executed by G.Bhuvarahan 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 in her favour, she gave an undertaking that she filed probate before the Original Side of the High Court and the same is kept pending. Therefore, based on the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration the Criminal complaint was lodged against the Petitioner under Section 83 of Registration Act. Meanwhile, the De-facto complainant had also preferred a complaint to the Special team.
9. The learned Counsel for the second Respondent submitted that the Petitioners herein had filed a Writ Petition challenging the findings of the Inspector General of Registration. After hearing the arguments of both the parties i.e., Petitioner as well as Registration Department, learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition with the following observation:
"49. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the second Respondent and, therefore, the said order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the law enforcing agency is directed not to proceed with the filing of the Charge Sheet till the suits filed by the Petitioner and Respondents 5 to 8 attain finality."
10.Therefore, in the light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent submitted that the 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 FIR need not be quashed and it may be kept in abeyance till the proceedings in T.O.S.No.1 of 2018 attains finality.
11.By way of rejoinder to the arguments of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/De-facto complainant, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner expressed his condemnation to the procedures conducted by the Investigation Officer and the De-facto complainant. When the dispute is before the Civil Court, the parties to the Civil dispute are bound by the final outcome of the Civil dispute. Here, the alleged Will is disputed by the De- facto complainant. The Will relates to the property left by the late Bhuvarahan and as per law, the Will has to be probated in the Metropolitan City of Chennai, accordingly T.O.S.No.1 of 2018 is pending before the Original Side of this Court. Both the Petitioner and the second Respondent are parties to the Testamentary Original Suit.
12. During the pendency of the Suit in T.O.S.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Original Side of this Court, an application was taken by the second 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 Respondent/De-facto Complainant, thereby admitted signatures of late G.Bhuvarahan and disputed signature in the Will were to be sent to the Forensic Science Department to obtain opinion of the handwriting experts regarding signature/handwriting of G.Bhuvarahan. Based on the application filed by the second Respondent, as applicant in the Testamentary Original Suit T.O.S.No.1 of 2018, the learned Single Judge had appointed Advocate Commissioner to take the original records containing admitted signature and disputed signature to the Forensic Science Department as per order dated 16.09.2019 in A.No.4732 of 2019 in T.O.S.No.1 of 2018.
13. The Forensic Science Department had addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Original Side) of the High Court regarding the opinion of the forensic experts for comparing the handwriting/signature found on the admitted signature containing document and the disputed signature of late Bhuvarahan. It has given an opinion that the signature found on the document in question i.e., Will, is not that of the person found in the admitted signature. This report was sent to the Assistant Registrar (Original Side) of the High Court which was placed before the learned Single Judge. The first Petitioner had filed an Application in A.No.9572 of 2019 in 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 A.No.4732 of 2019 in T.O.S.No.1 of 2018 seeking permission of this Court to peruse the originals and admitted signatures sent to the Hand Writing Experts, and the same was allowed by this Court by an order dated 10.12.2019.
14.While so, the second Respondent/De-facto complainant had preferred a Complaint to the Inspector of Police, Team -27, Forgery Prevention Wing, CCB -1, Vepery, Chennai. The said complaint was taken on file and the case was registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 109 of I.P.C. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that on perusal of the FIR itself, it can be presumed that during the pendency of T.O.S.No.1 of 2018, the second Respondent had approached the Police, thereby converted a Civil litigation into a Criminal litigation only to cause harassment which is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Also the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by way of rejoinder submitted that the procedure adopted by the Investigation Officer in taking this complaint on file and proceeding with the investigation is also unacceptable against the guaranteed right of the fair investigation as per the Constitution of India. Further, he submitted that the Accused No.2 in the 13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 FIR viz., Illango is only an attesting witness to the alleged Will and he had filed an affidavit before the Original Side of this Court, that he had affixed his signature after seeing the Will executed by late G.Bhuvarahan in favour of the first Petitioner.
15. Now, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) furnished a copy of the statement recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., wherein the said Ilango is alleged to have given a contradictory statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that he was introduced to G.Bhuvarahan by Vijayakumar, who was his classmate in Degree Course and he was the father-in-law of Vijayakumar. After hearing the death of G.Bhuvarahan, as a mark of respect, he visited the residence of G.Bhuvarahan. At that time, the husband of the first Petitioner viz., Vijayakumar and requested Ilango to affix his signature as witness to the Will. He was scared to offer such a help sought from him. To his enquiries, the husband of the Petitioner/Vijayakumar submitted that nothing to worry, he will not face any problem as it is only a formality as the Will will be subjected to the Probate before the High Court. The Petitioner will file petition before the High Court 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 for probating the Will and there is nothing to be scared of. Therefore, he had affixed his signature and subsequently, he landed in trouble. Therefore, he seeks to state the truth.
16.It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the alleged 164 (5) Cr.P.C statement recorded from the attesting witness Ilango is against the principles of fairness and equity and also against the affidavit given by witness to the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that earlier as on date based on the submission of the learned Government Advocate this Court had passed an order dated 02.11.2021 by observing as under:
“The petitioners/A1 & A5 who are accused in Crime No.284 of 2020, for the offences under Section 465, 467, 468, 471, r/w34 and 109 IPC, have filed this quash application.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant/2nd respondent is a relative to both the petitioners/A1 and A5. The 3rd and 4th accused are daughter and son of A1. The complaint is that, the father of the 1st petitioner/A1 and the 2nd respondent, Late Mr.G.Bhuvarahan passed away on 23.02.2014. Thereafter, a forged Will dated 27.11.2007 had been created. Using the same, a fraudulent Settlement Deed dated 29.12.2014 bearing Doc.No.691 of 2015 was created in favour of A3 and A4. He further submitted that, already a Civil Suit in TOS No.01 of 2018 is pending before this Court. With regard to the Will, he further relied upon the decision of the Apex court in the case of Sardool Singh Versus Smt.Nasib Kaur, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 146, wherein, the Apex Court had held that when the question regarding validity of a Will is sub judice, criminal prosecution on the 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 allegation of the Will being a forged one cannot be proceeded with. He further submitted that the Forensic Report vide Doc.No.193 of 2019 dated 18.10.2019, which was obtained in the proceedings of the Civil Suit is not agreeable, for the reason that the admitted signature as projected by the prosecution are disputed A1 to A9, A10(photo copy) and A11 to A18 were not written by persons who wrote Q1 to Q8 and the signature is disputed in the Will. An Application has been filed before the Civil court in Application No.9572 of 2019 and this Court by an order dated 10.12.2019 had recorded the objections and permitted the petitioner to make submissions in respect thereof. Such being the case, the investigation in Crime No.284 of 2020 has to be quashed.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor referring to the Forensic Report submitted that it is proved by the Government Examiner that the Will is a forged one and to file the status report, steps have been taken by the respondent police. He further submitted that A2 in this case has turned as an approver.
4. The second respondent filed counter but, there is no representation on his behalf.
5. Finding force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court directs the 1st respondent to file status report, to produce the admitted signature documents, questioned documents/signature, stage of the investigation and particulars with regard to the approver proceedings.
6. In the meanwhile, the respondent police is directed not to file final report in this case till the disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition.
7. Post the matter on 24.11.2021.” That the Accused No. 2 had been treated as approver by the Investigation Officer. To consider the Accused as approver, the investigation should have been completed and the final report of the investigation laid before the Court concerned. At that stage before trial, the learned trial Judge will examine the 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 approver and offers him to speak the truth. Based on his evidence trial ends in conviction. The role played by the Accused, as per the final report, attracts offences for punishment as that of the Accused. The approver evidence will be treated and the accomplishes who was turned as approver will be examined as P.W.1. Here, in this case, investigation had not been completed. While so, the person who had affixed his signature in the Will as attesting witness had been threatened by the Investigation Officer so as to resile from his earlier submission or deposition made before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate regarding the threat or inducement imposed on him either by the second Respondent or by the Investigation Officer. Under those circumstances, the argument of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) that Accused No.2/Illango had given statement under 164(5) of Cr.P.C is highly condemnable, attracting strictures and disciplinary proceedings against the Investigation Officer for his unfair conduct. Also, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by way of rejoinder submitted that the submission of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent that the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the Settlement Deed in favour of the children of the Petitioner on the ground that she had not obtained probate order regarding the Will. Therefore, she does not have locus standi to execute Settlement. 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 Therefore, directing the Inspector General of Registration to take further action based on the proceedings of the Deputy Inspector of Registration, the Inspector of Police, Anti-fraud Cell (forged document cell) ought to have registered the FIR, but he had not done so. Instead, the complaints have been clubbed together. The complaint of the second Respondent in this FIR is itself unacceptable as the Testamentary Original Proceedings are still pending and it has not attained finality. Only at the conclusion of the trial, when declaring order or judgment the learned Judge presiding over the Testamentary jurisdiction has to give a finding that one of the litigants before the learned Single Judge had indulged in creating forged documents. Therefore, directing the Police officials to register a case and to report does not arise at this stage. In this case, the Testamentary Original Suit proceedings had not been concluded, no piece of evidence was let by the learned Counsel for second Respondent regarding the permission obtained from the Court by the second Respondent to furnish such a complaint to the Police, no such order had been furnished, granting permission by the original side of the High Court to the De-facto complainant. Under those circumstances, in the light of the reported rulings in the case of Sardool Singh and another Vs. Nasib Kaur, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 146 and 18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 in the case of M.Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana and another, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 on which the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied is accepted by this Court. By the facts and Circumstances of the case, as observed by this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, wherein Petitioner herein is the Writ Petitioner therein and the Inspector General of Registration is the Respondent. The learned Single Judge had observed that the Testamentary Original Suit is still pending and it has not attained finality and stated that Criminal complaint given by the Sub Registrar is concerned, based on the direction of the Inspector General of Registration trial proceedings cannot proceed till the finality is attained in T.O.S.No. 01 of 2018.
17. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the case registered by the Sub Registrar concerned had been dropped by Investigation Officer earlier. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/De-facto complaint to keep this case pending till the finality is arrived at in T.O.S.No.01 of 2018 cannot be accepted.
19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021
18. In the light of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the facts that the Petitioner and the De-facto complainant are siblings and the Testamentary Original Suit is pending on the original side of this Court, and based on the opinion expressed by the handwriting expert that the disputed signature does not tally with the admitted signature of the Bhuvarahan, the second Respondent without obtaining permission from the Court had transgress their role as a litigant, she ought to have waited till judgment is pronounced by the learned Single Judge in T.O.S.No.01 of 2018. Therefore, the FIR registered based on the complaint of the second Respondent who is the Respondent in T.O.S.No.01 of 2018 is found to be unfair and illogical. The Inspector of Police receiving the said complaint and proceeding with the investigation is found unacceptable and abuse process of law. Considering the relationship between the Petitioner and the second Respondent/De-facto complainant as siblings and the daughters of late Bhuvarahan and considering the relationship and considering facts that the Criminal complaint pending in T.O.S.No.01 of 2018, the learned Single Judge on the original side of this High Court had not pronounced the judgement in T.O.S.No.01 of 2018, wherein directions may be issued against the person who are indulged in fraudulent documents, based on the 20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 direction of the Hon'ble Single Judge only FIR can be lodged or registered as per Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 109 of I.P.C. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted in the light of the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.26354 of 2021.
19. In the light of the rulings of this Court in the case of Sardool Singh and another Vs.Nasib Kaur, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 146 and in the case of M. Srikanth Vs.State of Telangana and another, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373, this is an exercise only to harass the Petitioner by the second Respondent. In the light of the above, this FIR in Crime No.284 of 2020 on the file of the first Respondent is liable to be quashed. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, the Registrar of the Registration Department are within their power to prosecute the Petitioner herein.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.284 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Team - 27, Forgery Prevention Wing, CCB - I, Vepery, Chennai is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 05.08.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order tri To
1.The Inspector of Police, Team - 27, Forgery Prevention Wing, CCB-I, Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
tri 22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 Order in Crl.O.P.No.1558 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.901 of 2021 05.08.2022 23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis