S.P. VELAYUTHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash the prosecution in C.C.No.151 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 in C.C.No.151 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur. The Petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property for valid consideration. It is the case of the Petitioner that the property to an extent of 6 grounds and 948 sq. ft. of land originally belonged to Andrew Xavier Pakiyam who died leaving behind his niece - Patricia/second Respondent herein and others as his legal heirs. The said Andrew Xavier Pakiyam is alleged to have executed a Power of Attorney Deed on 18/8/2000 pertaining to the said property which was registered on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Velacherry under Doc.No.541 of 2000. The Power of Attorney deed was executed in favour of one Gopi. The said Gopi had sold the property to the Petitioner herein for sale consideration of Rs.15,34,800.00 by way of Sale Deeds registered as Document No.3291, 3293, 3296, 3298 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Velacherry. Subsequently, in the year 2003, the Petitioner herein had sold the property in favour of Kolli Venkata Mohan Rao and Kolli Muralikrishnan for a total consideration of Rs.17,80,368.00 through registered Sale Deeds registered as Document Nos.2599 to 2602 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Velacherry. Based on the complaint preferred by the second Respondent/De-facto Complainant, the District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount registered a First Information Report in Crime No.51 of 2004 on 27/9/2004 as against the said Gopi as well as the purchasers viz., the Petitioner herein and the said Kolli Venkata Mohan Rao and Kolli Muralikrishnan. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee in C.C.No.506 of 2005 for the offences under Ss. 120-B, 420, 466, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 and 109 of IPC. Since the prime Accused Gopi is absconding, the case was split up and the Petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.1. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur and re-numbered as C.C.No.151 of 2012. Since the allegation in the final report does not make out any offence against the Petitioner, the Petitioner had filed discharge petition before the trial Court and also sought quashing of the Charge Sheet pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur.

(3.) It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the second Respondent/De-facto Complainant had filed Civil Suit in C.S.No.215 of 2005 on the file of the Original Side of the High Court of Madras and it was transferred on the point of jurisdiction to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu and re-numbered as O.S.No.65 of 2012. This Petitioner had filed a Petition in Crl.M.P.No.7211 of 2019 seeking discharge. The Prosecution has also preferred a Petition in Crl.M.P.No.1078 of 2020 seeking production of additional documents. The subsequent purchasers challenged the prosecution before this Court by preferring a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.4 of 2020 which was dismissed on 8/7/2020. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner himself is the victim of forged documents. The case of the Prosecution, even if assumed to be true in its entirety, does not constitute any offence as against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is not a party to the forgery. Therefore, the Prosecution case is clearly hit by mala fides. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays this Court to quash the charge sheet filed against this Petitioner.