Madras High Court
Chellamuthu @ Karthik vs State By
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 20.09.2022 Pronounced on: 23.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019
Chellamuthu @ Karthik, ... Petitioners/Accused No.3
-vs-
1. State by,
Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Krishnagiri District. ... Complainant/Respondent
2. The Sub Registrar,
Pochampalli,
Krishnagiri District. ... Defacto complainant/Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.22 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate-II, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, so far as these petitioner is
concerned and quash.
___________
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the criminal case in C.C.No.22 of 2019, on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Krishnagiri.
2. The petitioner herein is arrayed as 3rd accused in the said criminal case taken cognizance for offences under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. The final report filed by the respondent police indicates that one Ramasamy Goundar had four sons. He left behind four sons and the land in Kattampatti Village. After the demise of Ramasamy Goundar, his four sons effected division of the property through partition deed dated 15.05.1990. 15 feet road total measuring 13 cents was left for the common usage of the sharers. While so, one of his son Mani settled his share to his wife Kavitha, vide settlement deed dated 10.04.2012 along with the right in the common road. While so, on 12.03.2016, Palanisamy (A1) another son of Rangasamy Goundar settled his share to his son ___________ Page No.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019 Muruganatham (A2), in which, 10 cents of land out of 13 cents earmarked as common road in S.No.225/2A4 was included along with the property held by Palanisamy and the common pathway was described as if, the land allotted to the shares of Mani, which was settled in favour of wife Kavitha. Alleging that, the misdescription of the boundaries was intentionally done to grab the land of Kavitha and same was done in connivance with document writer Chellamuthu @ Karthik (A3), who is the petitioner herein.
3. The specific allegation in the final report is regarding the land grabbing. Ms.Kavitha gave a complaint to District Registrar, Krishnagiri, on 06.05.2015. Pursuant to that, enquiry was conducted and it was found that the Field Map sketch enclosed along with the settlement deed dated 12.03.2017 presented by Palanisamy (A1) in favour of his son Muruganantham (A2) is a fabricated document. The document written by Chellamuthu @ Karthik (A3) has forged the document. Based on the report, of the District Registrar, the Sub Registrar, Pochampalli, has initiated action under Section 83 of Registration Act as well as lodged the complaint which has been taken up for investigation and ___________ Page No.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019 final report filed on 29.01.2019.
4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the document writer and he is not aware of the fabrication of the FMB sketch or any other document alleged to have been forged. He scribed the settlement deed dated 12.03.2013 based on the details and documents given by A1 & A2. Furthermore, after registration of the settlement deed with the alleged misdescription of the boundaries, realising the error, the rectification deed dated 09.09.2015 was registered by A1. Thereafter, the settlement deed executed by A1 in favour of A2 was cancelled in toto, vide document dated 19.03.2016. Thus, by proceedings of the District Registrar, dated 13.07.2015 and by subsequent cancellation of the rectification deed, the title of the property held by Kavitha is restored. Apart from that, Kavitha, on 21.04.2016, executed power of attorney in favour of one Ismail, who in-turn, had sold the property held by Kavitha to Muruganantham, vide sale deed dated 26.04.2016. Hence, submitted that this petitioner, who is the document writer and not aware of the alleged fabrication of sketch need not face the prosecution. Since the effect of the alleged fabrication has ___________ Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019 been nullified by cancelling the Settlement deed and also by the fact that Kavitha, the title holder had sold the property to A2/Muruganantham and the victim of the alleged land grabbing is no more. The land owner and by purchase from the victim, the accused is presumably the title holder.
5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that pursuant to the proceedings of District Registrar, the misdescription of the property found in the settlement deed executed by A1 in favour of A2 through rectification deed was later cancelled. However, the crime of fabrication of document and registering the document in favour of A2 in respect of the property which A1 had no title is per se, a crime which is liable to be prosecuted. Even though, by subsequent action of the Authorities, the fraud has been nullified.
6. This Court, on considering the rival submissions and the facts involved, finds that the property of Late Ramasamy Goundar has been divided among his four sons. One of the son has attempted to convert the portion of the road earmarked for common usage as his own and has executed settlement deed in ___________ Page No.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019 favour of his son. In this transaction, the role of A3 is only drafting the deed. Though, he is suppose to verify the parent documents and other relevant documents at that same time, when the executant or the claimants furnish fake or fabricated documents, it may not be possible for a document writer at all times to properly scrutinise the same. More so, when the parties are related to each other and the land being ancestral property. Further, in view of the subsequent development that Kavitha, who is the victim of the alleged fraud been redressed by cancellation of the deeds offending her interest and she has later sold away the property to one of the accused, the petitioner who is a document writer need not be prosecuted.
7. For the above said circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition is Allowed. The petition to quash the complaint in C.C.No.22 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Krishnagiri, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.09.2022
___________
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
bsm
To,
1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,
2. The Sub Registrar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
___________ Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12099 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019 Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN. J, bsm Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P.No.2099 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.6270 of 2019 23.09.2022 ___________ Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis