High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025and Crl.M.P.Nos.3734 and 3736 of 2025R.Fathima @ Umamageshwari... PetitionerVs1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Ambattur Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai.2. M.Kumar... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for entire records in pursuant to the final report in CC No.21 of 2022 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur as so far as petitioner concerned and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.S.SivakumarFor R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDERThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.21 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant owned a Flat situated at Flat No.1-G, Murugan Flats, Banu nagar, Oragadam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai to an extent of 442 sq.ft of undivided share of land with built up area of 813 sq.ft. While being so, the petitioner had created a fabricated document viz., deed of sale agreement dated 14.03.2018 as executed by the defacto complainant. Subsequently, on 22.10.2018, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defacto complainant in O.S.No.03 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamalle. Thereafter, the defacto complainant verified the said sale agreement and found that the signature is a forged one and he is not willing to sale the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.605 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025C.C.No.21 of 2022 and it is pending for trial.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a tenant with the second respondent and now, he had vacated the premises. In fact, the petitioner filed a suit for bare injunction and the same was also rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 6. The specific case of the second respondent is that the petitioner had forged the signature and fabricated the agreement for sale and filed a suit for injunction. Therefore, there are specific allegations and material to attract the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law. 8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged............... 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................."The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.10. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceeding in CC No.21 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial in CC No.21 of 2022, within a Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.28.02.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur2. The Inspector of Police, Ambattur Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.5769 of 202528.02.2025Page 8 of 8