Madras High Court
Banumathi vs The State By on 22 November, 2021
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.OP.No.28688 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P. No.28688 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16232 of 2017 & 10826 of 2021
Banumathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State By
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch – II,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. Murali, S/o.Subbaih
[R2 impleaded as per the Order of this Court
dated 02.02.2018 made in Crl.M.P. No.
1335 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.No.28688 of 2017]
...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.720 of 2016 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Kancheepuram District and quash
the same as against the petitioner [A3].
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
Crl.OP.No.28688 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ravi
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) – R1
Mr.P.Nandakumar – R2
******
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report filed under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the I.P.C.
2. The crux of the charge against the petitioner is as follows :
The accused A1 and A2 and the defacto complainant are brothers. They jointly purchased the following three items of property,
1. admeasuring about 2400 sq.ft. by a document No.6618 of 1993 in Kaspuram Village, Tambaram
2. Another housing property at Urapakkam Village
3. Yet another property in Kabulakandigai at Thiruvalangadu.
________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 7 Crl.OP.No.28688 of 2017 The allegation against the accused is that A1 and A2 conspired together and A2 forged the signature of the defacto complainant and created Power of Attorney in favour of A1 by impersonisation and both A1 and A2 sold the property at Tambaram to one Sheela on 16.09.1988. Similarly, A2 created forged documents of the property situated at Urapakkam Village and availed loan by pledging the property. As far as the property purchased in Thiruvalangadu, A2 forged power of attorney and executed power of attorney in favour of A1 on 24.08.1999 and thereafter, A1 sold the above property on 19.08.2008 in favour of A3, who is his wife. Subsequently, A3 executed gift settlement in respect of the above property. These facts have not been disputed. Hence, the accused were charged for the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as creating false documents, forgery, there are no materials as against the petitioner/A3. Except that she had purchased the property from her husband, there is no other allegations found against the petitioner herein and ________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 7 Crl.OP.No.28688 of 2017 hence, she cannot be prosecuted for any other offences, merely because she has purchased the property.
4. Whereas, the learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] submitted that the prosecution unearthed materials which clearly show that the A2 has infact forged the signature of the defacto complainant and created power of attorney, besides he sold the property to the petitioner and the materials available on record clearly show the complicity of the petitioner in this case and hence, prayed for dismissal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. The materials unearthed by the prosecution clearly show prima facie materials that A2 has forged the signature of the defacto complainant and the property has been jointly sold by A1 and A2. Similarly, A2 forged documents and availed loan by pledging the property in Urapakkam Village. As far as the property in Thiruvalangadu is concerned, A2 appears to have ________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 7 Crl.OP.No.28688 of 2017 forged the signature of the defacto complainant and executed power of attorney in favour of A1 and A1 in turn executed a sale deed in favour of A3, who is his wife. These materials, though clearly indicate that charges under section 406, 465, 568, 471 will not be attracted as against A3, since the materials collected by the prosecution indicate that A1 and A2 actively participated in the creation and falsification of documents. At the same time, since A3 is also a party to the sale deed executed by A1, in her favour, whether her action would fall under section 34 of IPC has to be seen by the trial Court. The trial Court has to decide whether A3 had shared a common intention or not with the other accused wile preparing the forged documents and the trial Court has to proceed in that line. Hence, the question of quashing the final report against the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage. The trial court shall decide the case on its own merits without having influenced by the above observations.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Considering the age of the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with except for receiving copies, for answering the charges, for questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the dates fixed by ________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 7 Crl.OP.No.28688 of 2017 the trial Court. The trial Court shall dispose of the case without being influenced by any of the above observations made by this Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.11.2021
vrc
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur, Kancheepuram District.
2. The The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch – II,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6 of 7
Crl.OP.No.28688 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
Crl.O.P. No.28688 of 2017
22.11.2021
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7 of 7