Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Ulaganathan vs The Inspector Of Police on 1 March, 2022

Author: G.Ilangovan

Bench: G.Ilangovan

                                                                            Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018

                                    BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 01/03/2022

                                                         CORAM:

                                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                             Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018
                                                          and
                                         Crl.MP(MD)Nos.7996 and 7997 of 2018


                     Ulaganathan                             : Petitioner/A4
                                                           Vs.


                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       District Crime Branch,
                       Tuticorin,
                       (Crime No.26 of 2007)                    : R1/Complainant

                     2.S.Mayilerum Perumal                      : R2/De-facto complainant

                                  Prayer:Criminal    Original    Petition    is     filed       under
                     Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to
                     the case in CC No.1366 of 2017 pending on the file of the
                     Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tuticorin and quash the same as
                     against the petitioner.

                                    For Petitioner          : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy

                                    For 1st Respondent      : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy
                                                              Government Advocate
                                                              (Criminal side)

                                    For 2nd Respondent      : No appearance




                     1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018

                                                                 O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the case in CC No.1366 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tuticorin.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The de-facto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint with the following allegations. The de-facto complainant and his pangalis number about 30 owned property in survey No.1298/A1 measuring about 16 cents and in survey No.1298B/2B measuring 2 acres and 70 cents. Totally 2 acres 86 cents are in their joint possession and the revenue records were also standing in their name. It came to their notice that the offence of impersonation has been committed by A1-Vellaisamy, Balasubramanian, who is A2 herein and by impersonation, the property was sold to A3-Muthuvelan, on 05/08/2006. Similarly, the property situated in survey Nos.78/9, 79/2, 80/3, 80/5 and 94/3 belongs to Sooran. He was having only a share. After the death of the above said Sooran, the property devolved upon his son namely Paramasivam and he is in possession and enjoyment. So in respect of that property 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018 also, A2 impersonated the above said Sooran and executed a power of attorney, on 12/03/2007. That property was sold to this petitioner namely Ulaganathan.

3.Similarly, one Ramasamy was owning land in survey No.73 and that property was also dealt by impersonation and A2-Balasubramanian impersonated and got the power of attorney in respect of that property also. So, based upon the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, investigation was undertaken and materials were collected and after completing the investigation, final report has been filed against 12 persons. This petitioner was arrayed as 4th accused.

4.Seeking quashment of the final report, this petition has been filed by this petitioner mainly on the ground that he is only a bona fide purchaser without any notice and he has no-way involved in the above said allegation of impersonation and falsification of power of attorney etc.

5.Heard both sides.

6.It is a case of impersonation, falsification of records and fabricating the Government seals etc. The 5th 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018 para of the final report shows that forged stamp papers, Government seals, rubber stamps of the Government officials and bank passbook have been created for the purpose of the committing the above said crime of impersonation and execution of sale deeds, power of attorney etc. This petitioner is concerned, in respect of the property in survey Nos.78/9, 79/2, 80/3, 80/5 and 94/3, which is situated in Thannothu Village, Srivaikundam Taluk.

7.According to the de-facto complainant, this property belongs to Paramasivam, s/o.Sooran. Sooran died 10 years back. Impersonating the name of the deceased Sooran, A2- Balasubramanian got the power of attorney in his name. On the strengthen of the power of attorney, he sold the property to the petitioner. This has been elaborately set out in the preamble portion of the order.

8.Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser without any notice and the sale deed, which is standing in the name of the petitioner has not been procured. The reason for the non-production of the document is not explained.

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018

9.As mentioned above, the power of attorney deed is, dated 12/03/2007 and the sale deed was executed in the name of this petitioner, on 28/03/2007. Within 10 days from the date of power of attorney document, the sale deed has been effected. So from the above said facts, it is seen that prima facie materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer in the form of expert opinion of the thumb impression and hand writing experts. So prima facie, it is seen that it is a case of large scale conspiracy of dealing with the properties knowing fully well that they belong to some other persons. This petitioner is the beneficiary of the above said forged document.

10.When serious allegation of fabricating of Government seals and Government officials seals, the matter may be thoroughly tried by the trial court. Petitioner can produce the evidence before the trial court. Whether the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser without notice, is a matter for trial. This is not the fittest case, which requires interference of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C to stall or quash the proceedings against this petitioner. Absolutely, I find no merit in this petition. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018

11.In the result, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

01.03.2022 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No er Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018 G.ILANGOVAN,J., Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17996 of 2018 01/03/2022 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis