High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.18002 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.09.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMARCrl.O.P.No.18002 of 2024and Crl.M.P.No.10694 of 20251.Abhilasha Jain2.Vivek Jain ... PetitionersVs.1.The State Rep by The Inspector of PoliceCentral Crime Branch – III, Team – 16Land Grabbing Investigation Cell- IVepery, Chennai – 600 0072.P.G.Unnikrishnan ... RespondentsPRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in C.C.No.1399 of 2024 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB & CBCID, Egmore, Chennai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners.For Petitioner:Mr.A.NagarajanFor Respondents: Mr.KMD.Muhilan for R1Additional Public ProsecutorMr.R.Rajarajan for R21/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18002 of 2024ORDERFinal report in C.C.No.1399 of 2024 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID, Egmore, Chennai is sought to be challenged by the A3 and A4/petitioners herein by way of this original petition. Final report has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 147 read with 120B of IPC. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that the Plot Nos.5A and 5B in S.No.164/2B totalling to an extent of 4228 sq.ft., belongs to the defacto complainant by virtue of his purchase made in the year 1987. However, in the year 2011, A1 and A2 has created POA by impersonating the defacto complainant with the help of A5 and created document. In pursuant to the same, they had claimed to have purchased the property. Thereafter, A3 and A4 are said to have purchased the property from A1 and A2 on 05.07.2013 by availing the loan from LIC for a sum of Rs.1 crore 43 lakhs and constructed building for two wheeler showroom, now, it appears that the said loan has been cleared and the petitioners have availed a loan from Axis bank. The allegations against the petitioners/accused 3 and 4 is that they in connivance with A1 and A2 knowing very well that the property belongs to the defacto complainant had entered into sale deed with an intent to gain 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18002 of 2024illegally had committed the offences under 420, 465, 467, 468 and 147 read with 120B of IPC . 3. Admittedly, suits are pending between in respect of the property from 1996 onwards as per the statement of the witnesses. Though there are allegations of alleged forgery the same is only against the A1, A2 and A5. A3 and A4/petitioners herein are the subsequent purchasers by availing housing loan from LIC and constructed house, therefore, merely, because they have purchased the property which has a defective title, it cannot be said that there was forgery on the part of the subsequent purchasers who have bonafidely purchased the property that too after availing the loan from LIC. 4. To constitute the offence of forgery, the creation of the false document has to be established. The word 'forgery' is defined under Section 463 of IPC, which reads as follows:“463. Forgery.—Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.”3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18002 of 20245. Thus, the essence of the offence of forgery is the making of a false document. As to what constitutes a false document is explained in Section 464 IPC which reads as follows:“A person is said to make a false document or false electronicrecord:First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently—(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of theelectronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document, electronicrecord or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by theauthority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed,executed or affixed; orSecondly.—Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or anelectronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signatureeither byhimself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; orThirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronicrecord or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mindor intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document orelectronic record or the nature of the alteration.”4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18002 of 20246. For better appreciation, this Court deems it fit to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein, it is held as under:“There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.”Emphasis supplied5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18002 of 20247. Therefore, from the above dictum makes it very clear that unless the document in question comes within the category of a false document as defined in Section 464 of the IPC, there cannot be a case of forgery.8. Considering the said proposition and further the allegation that A3 is also a classmate of the defacto complainant and and knowing fully well with regard to the title of the defacto complainant, the petitioners have purchased the property is concerned, this Court is of the view that merely because A3 and defacto complainant were classmate in the school, it cannot be presumed that he had an idea about the title of the property, in fact, A3 and A4 have purchased the property after due diligence that too after availing the loan from LIC. When the A3 and A4 have bonafidely purchased the property, they cannot be slapped for the offences 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and other serious offences. Even if the allegations made in the final report were taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, it does not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case as against the petitioners. Hence, prosecution initiated against the petitioners/A3 and A4 stand quashed. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18002 of 20249. The defacto complainant has already filed suits to set aside the documents. It is for him to work out in the civil suits. In respect of the other accused, the Trial Court shall dispose of the case expeditiously as possible. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 25.09.2025dhkNeutral Citation:Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoTo1.The Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB & CBCID, Egmore, Chennai 2. The Inspector of PoliceCentral Crime Branch – III, Team – 16Land Grabbing Investigation Cell- IVepery, Chennai – 600 0073.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18002 of 2024N. SATHISH KUMAR , J. dhkCrl.O.P.No.18002 of 202425.09.20258/8