Prabhu Jayaraman v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.19769 of 2022 Prabhu Jayaraman ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Thiruvallur.
2.Balasubramaniyam ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Crime No.12 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Pradeep Jayaraman For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor 1/12
ORDER
The petitioner/A6 has filed this petition to quash the proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police. 2.The second respondent/defacto complainant filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, who on receipt of the same registered a case against the petitioner and six others in Crime No.12 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 468 and 34 of IPC.
3.The gist of the case is that the property in Survey No.13/2 measuring an extent of 1.24 acres in Panapakkam Village was owned by one Chengaiyya Thevar, father of the second respondent and Patta No.172 also stand in the name of second respondent's father. The second respondent's father Chengaiyya Thevar passed away in the year 1974. When his father was alive, one C.R.Santhalingam with illegal motive registered a forged sale 2/12
deed dated 31.03.1967 bearing Document No.829 of 1967 as if Chengaiyya Thevar, Ellaiyya Thevar, Balasubramaniya Thevan and Balakrishnan had executed the same in his favour. Using this forged document, A1 had subsequently created a settlement deed in favour of his brother C.R.Loganthan/A2 vide Document No.1357 of 2009 dated 06.03.2009 for 62 cents and for the balance 62 cents, C.R.Santhalingam/A1 executed a settlement deed in favour of his two sons, C.S.Yogendrayya/A3 and C.S.Gunasekar/A4. Thus, thereafter several documents have been created. The primary complaint is that Document No.829 of 1967 is a created document and this document has not been executed by the second respondent's father. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint based on which a case has been registered.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was born in the year 1983 and a case has been registered against the petitioner as though he forged a document of the year 1967. He would submit that the petitioner is an industrialist, due to the registration of the above case his name got damaged and he is unable to carry out his business 3/12
and there have been spokes put into his business activities citing the above case. He further submits that the petitioner purchased the property on 29.08.2016 vide Document No.3353 of 2016 and this is being now projected as though it is a creation following the forged document of the year 1967. He would further submit that the petitioner had never met the defacto complainant and he is not aware about any allegation of the defacto complainant who lodged a complaint nearly after 53 years. 5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the reference made from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, FIR in Crime No.12 of 2019 was registered against seven persons. He would submit that during investigation, the specimen signature of the second respondent was obtained on 10.01.
2022 and forwarded the same to Fingerprint Expert along with the disputed fingerprint available in Document No.829 of 1967. Thereafter, a report has been received from the Superintendent of Police [FP], Tamil Nadu Finger Print Bureau in C.No.04/SDFPB/TVLR/POLICE/2023 dated 24.04.2023.
5/12
6/12
7/12
8/12
9/12
6.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that from the report of the Fingerprint Expert, it is clear that the fingerprint available in Document No.829 of 1967 is similar to the fingerprint of the second respondent. He further submitted that due to the restriction imposed by this Court on 09.01.2023, final report could not be filed. 7.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that after the report of the Fingerprint Expert, the root of the case itself has been cut. Further, it is seen that investigation is almost completed. In view of the above, the restriction imposed by this Court on 09.01.2023 in Crime No.12 of 2019 is no more required. The respondent police can now file the final report before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
20.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order cse To 10/12
1.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Thiruvallur.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
11/12
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse 20.06.2023 12/12