D.Thangaraj Pandiyan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.12.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8346 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.3952 of 2020

1. D.Thangaraj Pandiyan

2. Savithri

3. Sivaraman

4. Subramaniyan ... Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 7 & 5 Vs.

1. The State Represented by Inspector of Police, The District Crime Branch, Land Grabbing, Ramanathapuram, (Crime No.23 of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant

2. S.P.R.Velmurugan ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of relating to the FIR in Crime No.23 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.S.Thangaraj for R2

ORDER

The petitioners herein has filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash FIR in Crime No.23 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.23 of 2020. The second respondent/defacto complainant made a complaint before the first respondent, stating that he had borrowed a huge amount from the first petitioner and also executed the power of attorney in favour of the first petitioner as a security for receipt of debt amount. The first petitioner and other accused forged the life certificate with the connivance of the A4 doctor and registered the sale deed dated 29.06.2018. The Sub-REgistrar also without proper verification fo the life certificate registered the document. Therefore, the second respondent filed the complaint before the first respondent police. The first respondent police registered the case against the petitioner and other accused including the doctor, who issued the life certificate without appearance of the defacto complainant for the

alleged offences under Sections 406 420, 294(b), 506(i) and 120(b) of IPC. To quash the same, the petitioners have filed this petition .

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they acted as per the power of attorney. It is the case of the defacto complainant, he executed a power of attorney as a security to the first petitioner. In the said circumstances, it is open to the second respondent to file an appropriate suit to challenge the transaction. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint was given after lapse of many years by giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. During the pendency of the quash proceedings, the investigating officer conducted the investigation and found that the life certificate was genuine one and deleted the doctor from the list of the accused. Therefore, there was no materials to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offence. The learned counsel further submitted that after the deletion of a key accused, the case against the petitioners is not maintainable. In the said circumstances, he seeks for quashment of the FIR.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the investigation has been completed and they are ready to

file a final report.

5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that there is a conspiracy between the petitioners and the other accused to create the document of the sale deed dated 29.06.2018, and for the said document, they are instrumental in getting the life certificate without verifying the status of the defacto complainant. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the executant is alive, but, he was not produced before the doctor and they obtained life certificate. In the said circumstances, the offence is clearly made out and the deletion of the reported filed by the investigating officer is not a ground to quash the proceedings. If the deletion report is served, the defacto complainant has right to file protest petition and hence, he seeks for dismissal of the quash petition.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and also the subsequent development of the investigation.

7. This Court directed the investigating officer to produce the final report and also all the documents collected during the course of investigation.

8. In the final report, it is specifically stated that the doctor who was arrayed as accused made a statement that he gave the life certificate after the perusal of the aadhar card of the defacto complainant and his appearance before him. During the investigation, the doctor and the other witnesses were examined by the investigating officer and it is found that the doctor gave a life certificate after ascertaining the appearance of the parties in their address. The deletion report of the investigating officer is as follows:

9. In view of the above specific submission made by the investigating officer, the allegation against the petitioner that they conspired with the doctor and obtained the forged life certificate of the defacto complainant and entered into the fraudulent sale transaction is not correct. Hence, this Court finds no merits in the contention of the defacto complainant that the offence was made out against the petitioners. Without the life certificate, there could not have been any transaction. The life certificate was not forged one and in the said circumstances, the further allegation that the petitioner made the transaction on the basis of the forged life certificate is not at all correct. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners and it is open to the defacto complainant to file an appropriate suit before the appropriate forum. The Civil Court shall number the suit and decide all the issues except the issue of limitation in view of the following undertaking affidavit filed by the accused before this Court:

10. This Court considering the pendency of the criminal case before this Court for number of years, in the interest of justice, recorded the above undertaking in order to meet the equity jurisdiction.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed with above liberty to file a suit before the appropriate Court. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.12.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sbn To

1. The Inspector of Police, The District Crime Branch, Land Grabbing, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

sbn Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8346 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.3952 of 2020 05.12.2023