Madras High Court
Sounthar @ Soundarrajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 14 September, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.680 of 2022
Sounthar @ Soundarrajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Team XV, ALGSC - 1,
Central Crime Branch -1,
Greater Chennai, Vepery.
2.Victor Daniel
3.V.Deepa
(impleaded as 3rd respondent vide order
dated 14.09.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3556 of 2022
in Crl.O.P.No.1438 of 2022) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records pending on the file of the first respondent
pertaining to FIR in Crime No.122 of 2021 dated: 22-5-2021 pending on the
file of first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mrs. Selvi George
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R3 : Mr.M.Prem Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.122 of 2021 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that an extent of 2400 Sq.Ft of vacant land situated in S.No.83/3 and 121/2 Mankali Neediman Nagar, 5th Street, Plot No.51, Kolathur Village, Ayanavaram taluk belongs to his wife G.L.Kanickam and that both of them are pensioners. They received an information that some unknown people are doing Boomi Pooja in their land and therefore he rushed to the V-6 Police Station and lodged a complaint. Based on that complaint, First Information Report was registered in Crime No.122 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC, in which the petitioner has been arrayed as A4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the A1 impersonated the original owner and executed a forged Power of Attorney document in favour Sathishkumar/A2 vide POA Document No.1804 of 2019 dated 31.05.2019 and by using this forged Power deed, the said A2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Mr.Sivakumar/A3 vide sale deed document No.819 dated 13.03.2020 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022 thereafter the said A3 executed a registered Sale deed in favour of one Ms.Deepa/3rd respondent herein vide document registered in document No.2163 dated 09.10.2020 and thus A1, A2 and A3 committed the offence.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. She further submitted that apart from the First Information Report, there is no specific overt act as against the petitioner. Hence she prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard Mrs.Selvi George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
6. There are totally 5 accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A4. According to the case of the prosecution, A1 impersonated the de-facto https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022 complainant and executed Power of Attorney in favour of A2. A2 in turn executed a sale deed in favour of A3 and A3 executed sale deed in favour of one Deepa, who is now implicated as 3rd respondent. On perusal of the deed executed by the petitioner in favour of 3rd respondent, it is very clear that he along with other accused persons impersonated the de-facto complainant and executed Power of Attorney in favour of A2. Therefore, he has admitted his liability to pay a sum of Rs.44,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent, who is subsequently an innocent purchaser, who purchased from A3 in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner is the main person behind the entire crime and he has committed very serious offence.
7. There are prima-facie materials to register the First Information Report as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022
8. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022 should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. ......................
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022 quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.09.2022 (1/2) Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mpl https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mpl To
1. The Inspector of Police, Team XV, ALGSC - 1, Central Crime Branch -1, Greater Chennai, Vepery.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.1438 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.680 of 2022
14.09.2022 (1/2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8