Nandhini Ravi v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 01.11.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL.O.P.No.25590 of 2018 and CRL.M.P.No.14621 of 2018 Nandhini Ravi .. Petitioner(Accused) Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D. Metro Wing, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ..1st Respondent (Complainant) 2.R.Santhanalakshmi .. Respondent/(Defacto complainant) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of FIR No.13 of 2017 dated 01.12.2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mrs.M.Prabavathi, APP

O R D E R

On the directions of this Court, the CBCID have registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2017 on 01.12.2017, on the complaint lodged by Santhanalakshmi for the offences under Section 465, 468, 471, 420, 506(i) and 120B IPC against Nandhini (A1) and two others, for quashing which, A1 is before this Court.

2.Heard Mr.T.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3.On a reading of the FIR, it is alleged that the de facto complainant had two sons by name Raja Edvin and Ravi Edvin. Ravi Edvin died in a motor accident in India and MCOP.No.1266 of 2010 was filed claiming compensation. It is alleged that the accused had forged the signature of the de facto complainant in the MCOP petition filed before the Tribunal. Hence, the complaint and the FIR. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Mr.Ravichandran contended that the de facto complainant herself has died and that, the compensation amount is still lying in the Bank and has not been withdrawn.

5.However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused filed original MCOP petition in the name of the de facto complainant by forging her signature and that, the handwriting experts' report shows that the purported signature in the MCOP petition is not that of the de facto complainant. Thus, when there are prima facie materials for a full fledged investigation to proceed, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp [1] SCC 335). With the above observation this petition is closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Co) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dua/gya To 1.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D. Metro Wing, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL.OP.No.25590 of 2018 ASK(27/11/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/