Rohini Shanker v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and Crl.MP.No.18532 of 2025 Rohini Shanker ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Tambaram CCB Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai.

(Crime No.9 of 2025) 2.Sathish Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under 528 of BNSS,to call for the records and quash the FIR in Cr.No.9 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan (Senior Counsel) For Mr.C.Vigneswaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) (For R1) Mr.V.Raghavachari (Senior Counsel) For Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan For TVJ Associates (For R2)

O R D E R

1/5

The petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.9 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as A3 in FIR No.9 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025 registered by the 1st respondent Police for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC. It appears that there are civil proceedings pending between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, and the subject matter of the dispute, including the alleged forgery, is also the subject of the said civil suit. Subsequently, an FIR has been filed in relation to the same issue against the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. This Court is of the view that the petitioner claims to have purchased the property in the year 1995 on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed on proper stamp duty. However, it now appears that the person who executed the Power of Attorney was an impersonator. The defacto complainant has also purchased the property from the original owner.

5. Such being the position, at the most, even if the petitioner had 2/5

transferred the property to some third party, the question involved is only one of title. Since a civil suit is already pending before the competent Court to decide the ownership dispute between the parties, the matter primarily falls within the realm of civil adjudication.

6. Nevertheless, the investigation may proceed in accordance with law. However, taking note of the fact that the dispute appears to be essentially civil in nature, and the petitioner also appears to be a victim of the alleged fraud, there shall not be any coercive steps taken against the petitioner. The investigation shall proceed and be completed as against the other accused, and if necessary, the petitioner may be treated as a witness in the case.

7. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.10.2025 kak To 3/5

1.The Inspector of Police, Tambaram CCB Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.

kak 08.10.2025 5/5