High Court · 2025

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 10.12.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQCRL.RC(MD)NO.1046 OF 2024andCRL.M.P(MD)Nos.11524 and 11525 of 2024Pothy Reddy...Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner.vs.State throughThe Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch-II Police Station,Thoothukudi District.(Crime No.47/2011) ...Respondent/Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C or under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS to call for the records and to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi, in Cr.M.P.No.11478 of 2024 in C.C.No.1120 of 2023, dated 02.08.2024.For Petitioner :M/s.M.Maria VinolaFor Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2O R D E RThe present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.No.11478 of 2024 in C.C.No.1120 of 2023 dated 02.08.2024, whereby, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. Brief Facts:2.1. One Arunachala Reddiar had two sons namely, Kamatchi Reddiar and Chenniah Reddiar. Kamatchi Reddiar died issueless and intestate. Chenniah Reddiar and his legal heirs are absolute owners of the subject property comprised in S.No.53 measuring an extent of 15 acres and 97 cents situated at Sinthalakattai Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District (hereinafter referred to as ‘’subject property’’). The subject property, which originally stood in the name of Arunachala Reddiar was subsequently mutated in the name of Chenniah Reddiar. Chenniah Reddiar's heirs, viz., Velusamy, Selvaraj, Arunachala Perumal, Saravanaperumal, S/o.Selvaraj and Dhilipan, S/o.Arunachala Perumal, are persons stated to have coparcenary right over the said ancestral property. A portion of the subject property is stated to have been sold by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3the above legal heirs of Arunachala Reddiar to Coral Orchids Private Limited vide Document No.1557/2011 dated 29.06.2011. 2.2. Whileso, one Veera Nagammal, claiming to be the foster daughter of Kamatchi Reddiar, claimed ownership over 4 acres out of 15 acres and 97 cents of subject property by virtue of Settlement Deed dated 12.09.1972 registered as Document No.1165 of 1972 dated 12.09.1972. She lodged a complaint before the respondent police alleging that her property has been sold fraudulently, pursuant to which, an FIR in Crime No.47 of 2011 was registered for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC against Chenniah Reddiar, Velusamy, Selvaraj, Arunachala Perumal, Saravana Perumal, Dhilipan, Kanagaraj (representing buyor), Veerapandi and Subramaniyan (witnesses to the deed). Though FIR had been registered against nine accused persons, the subsequent purchasers and witnesses, i.e, A7 to A9 were not arraigned as accused in the charge sheet. Though petitioner's name is not found in the FIR, however, while framing the charge sheet, petitioner's name has been included. 3. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to note that there has been subsequent developments, which has relevance in disposing of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4the present revision case. A1 and A2 died while A3 to A6 filed a discharge petition and the same was allowed by Judicial Magistrate No.4, Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.No.18297 of 2024 vide order dated 30.09.2024. It is submitted that A3 to A6 are legal heirs of Chenniah Reddiar and A7 (relative of the defacto complainant) is a confirming party.4. Earlier, petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.450 of 1991 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi against accused A3 to A6 claiming right over the suit schedule properties. The said suit was dismissed vide order dated 28.08.1992 and it was declared that petitioner herein has no rights over the suit schedule property. Petitioner has neither transferred any right, title or interest vide impugned sale deed nor a beneficiary under the sale deed, but was merely a confirming party as could be seen in the following clause in the sale deed:“And Whereas the confirming party Sh.S.Pothy Reddy had approached the Principal District Munsif Court, Tutucorin and filed a suit against the Seller duly, claiming the rights over the schedule property vide O.S.No.450/1991. However the said Court dismissed his suit and given the verdict in the favour of the vendor on 28th August 1982 and declared that he is not having any rights over the Schedule Property.And whereas the confirming party understand that they have left with no right, title, interest, claim etc of any nature whatsoever over the schedule property and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5undertakes and bounds themselves not to raise any claim, title, interest whatsoever over the Schedule Property and/or from the vendor or vendee, present or in future.”5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that when A3 to A6 have already been discharged from the offences though they are the beneficiaries and their nexus in the above offence is more proximate, there is no reason as to why A7, who was merely a confirming party, was not discharged. She would thus submit that the impugned order suffers from the vice of being arbitrary and illegal.6. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to Section 239 of Cr.P.C, which reads as under:“239. When accused shall be discharged.If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.”Obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 arises when the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage. The exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is certainly not to be undertaken at this stage and has to be postponed to a later date. Is the allegation/charge groundless? That alone need be considered at the stage of section 239/240 of the Cr.P.C. While framing charge, the Magistrate is expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case keeping in view the essential ingredients of the offence for which the accused is sought to be charged. The real test for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted make out no case whatsoever. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word "ground" connotes, foundation or basis, in Criminal cases it means basis for charging Criminal defendant or foundation for admissibility of evidence and word "groundless" connotes no basis of foundation in evidence.7. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra .vs. Delhi Administration and another reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766, relevant portion of which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7reads as under:‘’15.But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Court in India are under heavy pressure of workload. If the Sessions Jude is almost certain that the trial could only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time, it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.’’8. Before proceeding further, let us take a look at the statement of defacto complainant recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C, on the basis of which, petitioner has been arraigned as an accused. The same is is extracted hereunder:“,e;j Gfhiu nfhLj;jNghJ ehd; Mtzj;ij rupahf ghu;f;fhjjhy; vdf;F $lg; gpwe;j jk;gpahd Nghj;jp nul;bapd; ngaiu ehd; Gfhupy; Fwpg;gpltpy;iy. vdJ jk;gp Nghj;jp nul;bAk; kw;w vjpupfSld; Nru;e;J vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l epyj;ij M/s. Nfhuy; Mu;f;fpl;]; gpiuNtl; ypkpnll; fk;ngdpf;F tpw;gid nra;jjpy; Kf;fpa gq;F tfpj;jpUf;fpwhd;. ,e;j tpguk; vdf;F ,g;NghJjhd; njupa te;jJ. NkYk; vdJ tsu;g;G je;ij fhkhl;rp nul;bahUf;F rpe;jyf;fl;il fpuhk uP.ru;Nt vz; 53 y; cs;s epyq;fis jtpu NtW https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8ve;j nrhj;Jf;fSk; fpilahJ. mtuJ ifnahg;gj;JlNdh my;yJ ifNuifAlNdh $ba ve;jtpjkhd Mtzq;fSk; vd;dplk; ,y;iy. ,Nj Nghy; mtu; capUld; ,Ue;j tiuapYk; NtW ve;j nrhj;Jf;fisAk; thq;fpajhfNth my;yJ tpw;wjhfNth vdf;F vJTk; njupahJ. NkYk; ehd; Gfhu; kD nfhLj;j NghJ vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l epyj;ij M/s. Nfhuy; Mu;f;fpl;]; gpiuNtl; ypkpnll; epWtdj;jpw;F 29.06.2011 md;W fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;Js;sjhf jtWjyhf Fwpg;gpl;L tpl;Nld;. Mdhy; vjpupfs; Nkw;gb epyj;ij 05.07.2011 md;Wjhd; fpiuk; nra;J nfhLj;Js;shu;fs;. ,J rk;ge;jkhf jhq;fs; vd;id kPz;Lk; tprhupj;j NghJ ,e;j kW thf;F%yj;ij jq;fsplk; mspj;Njd;. ,J rk;ke;jkhf jhq;fs; vd;id tprhuiz nra;jPu;fs;.”9. Keeping in view the above principles, it may be relevant to note that the petitioner's name is nowhere found in the FIR nor in the charge sheet. The gravest/most serious allegation put against the petitioner viz., A7, is of collusion with A3 to A6. When A3 to A6 have been discharged from the offences, the plea of the allegation of collusion against the petitioner may no longer survive, in any view permissible. 10. Following the principle laid down in the decision referred supra, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi, in Cr.M.P. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9No.11478 of 2024 in C.C.No.1120 of 2023 dated 02.08.2024 and the petitioner is discharged from the offences alleged against him. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 10.12.2025NCC :Yes/NoIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/Novsn/LmTo1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi.2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch-II Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.47/2011)Copy to The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.vsn/LmORDER MADE INCRL.RC(MD)NO.1046 OF 2024andCRL.M.P(MD)Nos.11524 and 11525 of 202410.12.2025