Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery ipc in M.K.Alagiri vs State Represented By on 8 September, 2014Matching Fragments
25. As A6 and A7 Ramasamy Pandaram and Veluchamy Pandaram did not mention in the exchange deed dated 30.6.2008 that the property is the temple property. On the other hand they claimed as their ancestral property and therefore exemption Section 41(i) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act,1959 cannot be invoked by the petitioner. For the very same above reason, similar argument relying upon Minor and Inam Abolition and Coversion Act is also of no use. Therefore, there are prima facie materials which make out Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120b IPC, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property under Section 420 IPC, forgery for the purpose of cheating under Section 468 and using a forgery document as genuine document under Section 471 I.P.C.