V DHARMARAJ Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek quash of proceedings in C.C.No.328 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, wherein they stand accused of offences under Sections 420, 467, 474 r/w. 120(b) IPC.

(2.) THE charge sheet in the case informs that property of an extent of 8 acres in survey Nos.108.6, 109.1, 68.13 belonged to one Kalivarathaperumal son of Kothandarama Gounder and the same was purchased by Kanniya Gounder under sale deed registered as document No.1236/1981. THE purchaser had bequeathed the same under a Will to his son Sundaramurthy. THE complainant had obtained a general power from the said Sundaramurthy and was in enjoyment thereof. THE 1st petitioner/accused claiming himself to be the guardian of one Fleix Gabriel, the minor son of Kalivarathaperumal and on the strength of release deed registered as document No.505 of 1998, (which according to the prosecution relates to a different property) and with the connivance of the accused 2 and 3, with intent of usurping the property held by the complainant, prepared a false document viz., the sale deed registered as document No.402 of 2007 dated 25.01.2007 to the effect that A2 and A3 had purchased property from A1. THE accused 2 and 3 suppressing such fact had in turn sold property in survey No.108/6.09 and in an extent of 1 acre 93 cents to a third party.

(3.) THIS Court may look into the documents put up by the accused in an appropriate case. Given the clear and unambiguous ruling of the Honourable Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim's case that '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 documents (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', this Court towards satisfying itself that when the 1st petitioner represented himself to be the guardian of a minor and to be duly permitted under orders of Court to effect sale of the property, he indeed held such capacity, would look into the documents put up by the petitioners. On perusal of the documents, this Court finds that the contentions of the petitioners are factually correct. Again, this Court finds that the 1st petitioner has not represented himself to be any person other than himself. He has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 claiming to be the guardian of minor and empowered to effect sale, which position stands substantiated.