V.Arvind Kumar v. State Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR V.Arvind Kumar (M/A-48 years), S/o.Venkatachalam, Residing at No.39/24, Mariamman Kovil Street, Mettupalayam, Vaniyambadi, Tiruppattur District.
... Petitioner vs.
State rep. by its, The Superintendent of Police, Tirupattur District.
... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order made in Criminal Revision Petition No.19 of 2023 dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppathur District in Crl.M.P.No.2376 of 2022 dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Tirupathur District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jagan For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Page No.1 of 9
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 12.12.2025 in Criminal Revision Petition No.19 of 2023 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppathur District confirming the order dated 25.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.2376 of 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi.
2.Gist of the case is that N.K.Venkatachalam, the petitioner's father, initially lodged a complaint against one P.Manogaran, Advocate, before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Chennai, alleging professional misconduct. The complaint was taken on file as D.C.C.No.104 of 2018. During the enquiry, N.K.Venkatachalam marked ten documents Exs.C1 to C10 and the respondent therein, P.Manogaran, marked sixteen documents Exs.R1 to R16. The Disciplinary Committee, by order dated 28.02.2019, dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no advocate-client relationship and no professional misconduct made out. Out of the sixteen documents marked by P.Manogaran, Ex.R15 was A-Register extract pertaining to Survey No.598/9 in Udayendiram Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk. According to the petitioner, who is the son Page No.2 of 9
of N.K.Venkatachalam, Ex.R15 is a forged document. The petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act and received ARegister extract, found the said survey number stands in the name of one Jayaraman. According to him, the relevant entry altered/tampered by rounding off and making corrections so as to falsely project that the property stands in the name of P.Manogaran. Based on the said document, the complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry dismissed on 28.02.2019. Finding P.Manogaran, Advocate committing offence of forgery and giving false evidence, petitioner lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Rural Police Station, on 13.01.2020, followed by a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Tirupathur, on 14.01.2020. Thereafter, petitioner called for enquiry on 08.02.
2020 and informed that the issue was civil in nature and he should approach the competent civil court. Left with no other option, the petitioner filed petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, in Crl.M.P.No.2376 of 2022, seeking direction to register criminal case. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 25.07.2022 stating that according to the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Page No.
Rural, Survey No.598/9 stands in the name of Jayaraman and not in the name of either the petitioner or his father and Survey No.598/1 stands in the name of one Venkatachalam. The learned Magistrate further observed that the document produced by P.Manogaran does not pertain to Survey No.598/9, further the dispute related to a pathway issue, which is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.19 of 2023 before the District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathur. The Sessions Court by order dated 12.12.2025, dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi. Challenging the same, the present petition filed.
3.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner under the Right to Information Act on 18.11.2019 obtained revenue records pertaining to the survey No.598. On perusal of records, it was found that the patta to Survey No.598/9 in Udayendiram Village, not clear. But in Ex.R15, the entry clearly shows as if the property stood in the name of P.Manogaran. Relying upon the patta and Adangal extracts, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Rural. Page No.4 of 9
With regard to the allegation of forgery, the Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Rural, ought to have registered FIR and conducted investigation, which is not done. Both Courts below failed to consider this aspect and instead proceeded on the basis Survey No.598/1 stood in the name of one Venkatachalam and Survey No.598/9 stood in the name of Jayaraman, and that P.Manogaran produced a document relating to Survey No.598/1 and not Survey No.598/9. The petitioner contends that the property belongs to his father. The petitioner's grievance that P.Manogaran has no right or title over either Survey No.598/1 or Survey No.598/9, yet produced a document portraying as owner of survey No.598/9 by making overwriting and alterations, which, according to the petitioner amounts to forgery.
Both the Courts below failed to properly appreciate these aspects and dismissed the petition. Hence, the orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 4.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner's father earlier lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Chennai, in D.C.C.No.104 of 2018, and enquiry conducted. During the enquiry, the complainant Page No.
marked ten documents as Exs.C1 to C10 and the respondent therein, P.Manogaran, marked sixteen documents as Exs.R1 to R16. Ex.R15 is the A-Register extract relating to Survey No.598/9 in Udayendiram Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk. The contention of the petitioner is that Survey No.598/9 originally belonged to his forefathers and Ex.R15 is a forged document produced by P.Manogaran to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Chennai. It is pertinent to note that challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 28.02.2019, an appeal filed before the Bar Council of India in D.C.A. No.47 of 2019.
5.It is also seen there is dispute between the parties with regard to the use of a common pathway, and a writ petition is pending before this Court. Further, cases already initiated between the petitioner and P.Manogaran. The issue of patta and right over the pathway pertains to Survey No.598/3. The petitioner, on dismissal of the complaint by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, already filed appeal before the Bar Council of India. Hence, the issue relating to Ex.R15 is presently subjudice before the appellate authority i.e., Bar Council of India. The Page No.6 of 9
veracity and genuineness of Ex.R15 are matters for consideration in the said appeal and required to be adjudicated therein. 6.If the petitioner proves Ex.R15 is a forged document on the basis of the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act or any other materials available in the Bar Council of India appeal, it is always open to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law, including initiating criminal case, if he so desires. 7.In view of the above, this Court finds that the orders passed by both the Courts below needs no interference. Hence, the order dated 12.12.2025 in Criminal Revision Petition No.19 of 2023 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppathur District and the order dated 25.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.2376 of 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi are confirmed. Page No.7 of 9
8.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12.06.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vv2 To 1.The District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirupattur District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Page No.8 of 9
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 12.06.2026 Page No.9 of 9