Ramaiah v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.08.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.5139, 5140, 7581 and 7582 of 2020

1.Ramaiah ... Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11261 of 2020

2.Shanmugaraja ... Petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15527 of 2020 vs.

1.The State Rep. Through The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Wing, Ramanathapuram.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant

in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11261 of 2020

2.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Ramanathapuram. Crime No.7 of 2018 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15527 of 2020

3.Tmt.Vasiath Rahma (Died) ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant in both petitions

4.I.Oli Mohamed ... 3rd Respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15527 of 2020 [R3 is impleaded vide order of this Court in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2558 of 2021, dated 29.03.2023] Common Prayer:- Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to charge sheet in C.C.No.408 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and quash the same against the petitioners alone.

For Petitioner (in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11261 of 2020) : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.J.Anandakumar For Petitioner (in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15527 of 2020) : Mr.J.Barathan For Respondents (in both petitions) : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl. side) for R1 R2-Died For Intervenor (in both petitions) : Mr.R.Venkatesh COMMON ORDER A. The Petitions: These Criminal Original Petitions are filed by the petitioners who are arrayed as A1 and A4 in C.C.No.408 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram with a prayer to quash the proceedings. B. The Factual Matrix:

¶2The factual matrix on which the case arises is that on

16.06.2018, a case in Crime No.7 of 2018 was registered for the offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC by the District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram. The second respondent herein, the defacto complainant,Vasiath Rahma had lodged the said complaint. As per the complaint, the properties in S.No.29/24, part of Sivagnanapuram Village, Sakkarakottai Group of Ramanathapuram Taluk and the other properties were periodically acquired by herself and her husband by a registered sale deed and they are the absolute owners of the properties. When she and her husband were residing in Singapore along with their children, taking advantage of their absence, the accused had forged the power of attorney as if it was signed by the defacto complainant and her husband and as if the said forged power of attorney was notarized in Singapore and sent to India and adjudicated the said power of attorney. On the strength of the said power of attorney, further documents were created and properties were sold. After registering the case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted an investigation and filed the final report which is now taken on file as C.C.No.408 of 2019. Challenging the same these petitions are filed. C. The Arguments:

¶3Heard Mr G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first accused, Mr J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth accused, Mr A.Albert James, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent in both petitions and Mr R.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor.

3.1 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant and her husband had duly executed the deed of power of attorney. In the investigation, a strange procedure of sending a notice to the notary public in Singapore was adopted. The notary public has duly replied that he witnessed such an execution of documents by the defacto complainant and her husband and that he is maintaining a record to the effect that on the date the document was executed. After that, without considering the same, and without even verifying the fact whether the documents are forged or not, the charge sheet is filed. No investigation was done. The final report has no legs to stand. Even taking all the evidence that is annexed along with the final report at its face value, there is no proof that the signature of the defacto complainant and her husband was forged in the said power of attorney or that they were cheated based on the forged documents. Therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

3.2 The learned counsels would also submit that the defacto complainant's husband who is L.W.2 in the charge sheet, was in India at least from 2011. He was also elected as the councillor of the Panchayat Union for the term 2011 to 2016. In the remaining part of the land which is not sold by them, they have also built a big Kalyana Mandapam (Marriage Hall) and they are in enjoyment of the property. The petitioners/accused persons after the purchase, have also put up huge buildings as early as in the year 2010 and are in possession and enjoyment. While so suddenly in the year 2018, the complaint was lodged. Except to threaten the petitioners/accused and to extract ransom in the name of compromise, there is no other purpose for the complaint. The entire case is an abuse of the process of law.

3.3 The learned counsels would also submit that neither in the complaint nor in the 161 statements any explanation is given by the defacto complainant or her husband as to how the original title deeds also came to the possession of the power of attorney as well as the subsequent purchasers. Even the civil suit filed by the defacto complainant has been dismissed. Therefore, they would pray that this Court has to interfere.

3.4 The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that upon complaint made, the case was registered, the statements are recorded and the defacto complainant and her husband assert that the power deeds are forged and not signed by them. A letter rogatory was sent to the Embassy to ascertain the procedure and since the power of attorney was not executed duly as per the procedure, the charge sheet is filled.

3.5 Mr.R.Venkatesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor would submit that it is still the case of the defacto complainant and her husband that they never signed the power of attorney and their signatures are forged. When they have duly lodged the complaint, it is for the investigating officer to have verified the signatures. Even today, the same can be done and even the trial Court can also direct the same. Even during the course of the trial, in the interest of justice, further investigation can be ordered. When the final report is duly filed, on the plea of the petitioners that the case is false, it cannot be quashed. The defense has to be established only in the trial and this Court cannot consider the defense in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the case. The learned counsel would also rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr -vs-State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [SLP (Criminal) No.2953 of 2022], more specifically, relying upon paragraph No.9 in support of his contention.

3.6 The learned counsel would submit that as far as the civil suit is concerned, the same was only returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and since there is a change of counsel, the same could not be immediately filed before the higher forum, the steps will be taken soon. He would further submit that the first accused is a Village Administrative Officer and therefore, since he was acquainted with the defacto complainant and her husband, the originals were handed over to him in trust for certain dealings regarding revenue records etc. Therefore, the same cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners. D. The Discussion & Findings:

¶4I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

4.1 The charge is laid for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The crux of the allegation is that the said two powers of attorney dated 02.05.2022 are forged. Therefore, it goes without saying that unless the prosecution collects material and places on record to prove that the signatures found in the said power of attorney documents are forged and further it is proved that who forged the said signatures, the charges under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC cannot be maintained. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sheila Sebastian Vs. R.Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581.

4.2 It has also been further held that when the primary allegation of forgery itself is not proved the offence under Section 420 of IPC dependent on the proof of such forgery, will not also be made out. In this case, the basis on which the final report is filed is contained in the final report itself and it is essential to extract paragraph 13 to 15 of the final report, which reads as follows: "13. Nkw;gb Gy vz;zpy; fz;l 50 nrd;l; epyk; thjp kw;Wk; mtuJ fzth; xypKfk;kJ MfpNahh;fspd; mDgtj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; nghOJ Nkw;gb Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11261oando15527oofo2020 nrhj;jpw;F rk;ke;jkpy;yhj ,uhkehjGuk; Nrl; ,g;whfpk; efiu Nrh;e;j ghyRg;gpukzpad; kfd; ,uhikah vdg; th; Nkw;gb rh;Nt vz; 29/24-y; fz;l 50 nrd;l; epyj;jpw;F> thjpAk; mtuJ fzth; xypKfk;kJ vdg; tUk; jdpj;jdpahf rpq;fg;G+h; ehl;bd; Nehl;lhp gg;spf; jpU.fpU\;zd; rpthde;jk;> notaryoNo.No2001/0oa4aoOcto2001o –oatioSepo2002 vd;w gjpT vz; cilath; Kd;dpiyapy; jdf;F fle;j 02.05.2002-k; Njjp & 20/- f;F chpa Kj;jpiuj;jhspy; (vz; 3485/ehs; : 01.04.2002 Kjy; 3494/ehs; : 01.04.2002) nghJ mjpfhuk; toq;fpajhf jyh xU nghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;ij jahh; nra;J mjpy; trpaj;J uFkh kw;Wk; mtuJ fzth; xypKfk;kJ MfpNahh;fs; ifnahg;gk; Nghl;lJ Nghy; Nghypahf ,uzL; rl;l Kiwfis gpd;gw;whj nghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;ij jahh; nra;J mjd; mbg;gilapy; Nkw;gb nghJ mjpfhuj;ij ,uhikah vd;gth; jdJ ngaUf;F ,uhkehjGuk; khtl;l gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; e.f.vz;. 31/m1/2002 ehs;: 10.05.2002 kw;Wk; e.f.vz;. 32/m1/2002 ehs;: 10.05.2002 -d; gb Adjudicate gjpT nra;Js;shh;.

14.mjw;F gpd;G 1tJ vjphp ,uhikah Nkw;gb nghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpd; mbgg; ilapy; fle;j 2002-k; Mz;L Kjy; 2006k; Mz;L tiu 2 Kjy; 6 tiu cs;s vjphpfSf;F ntt;NtW Njjpfspy; ntt;NtW fpiua Mtzq;fs; thapyhf 50 nrd;l; epyj;ij fpiuak; nra;Js;shh;.

15.,J rk;ge;jkhf rpq;fgG; +h; ehl;by; Vw;gLj;jpa nghJ mjpfhuk; rk;ke;jkhf mjd; cz;ik jd;ik mwpa nrd;idapy; cs;s rpq;fg;G+h; J}juf mYtyfj;jpw;F (consulate General of Republic of Singapore) fle;j

16.04.2018k;

Njjp

,uhkehjGuk;

khtl;l

fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsh; mth;fs; %yk; fbjk; mDg;gpajpy; J}juf eph;thf mjpfhhp jpU.G+d;rpd;^tP mth;fs; rpq;fg;G+h; ehl;by; Nehl;lhp gg;spf; Kd;dpiyapy; nrhj;J rk;ke;jkhf Vw;gLj;jp nfhLf;Fk; nghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;ij cWjp nra;Ak; tpjj;jpy; nghJ mjpfhuk; vOjp thq;Fgth; fPo;f;fz;l tpjpKiwfis gpd;gw;w Ntz;Lk; vd;W gjpywpf;if

18.06.2018k; Njjp toq;fp cs;shh;fs;.

i) The document should be notarised by a Notary Public in Singapore.

ii) After that certified by the Singapore Academy of Law and

iii) Thereafter, legalized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore. Depending on the requirements and usage of document, the person may proceed to the Indian High Commission in Singapore or any othe Singapore Mission in India for further endorsement. vdNt ,t;tof;fpd; 1tJ vjphp ,uhikah> nrd;idapy; cs;s rpq;fg;G+h; J}juf mYtyf fbjj;jpy; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s

tpjpKiwfs;

VJk; gpd;gw;whky; ,uhkehjGuk; khtl;l gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; Nghypahd Mtzq;fis cz;ikahd Mtzkhf gad;gLj;jp

Nkw;gb

nghJ

mjpfhu

gj;jpuj;ij Adjudicate kl;Lk; nra;J kw;w vjphpfSf;F Nkw;gb 50 nrd;l; epyj;ij rl;lj;jpw;F Gwk;ghf Nghypahd Mtzq;fs; %yk; mgfhpj;Js;sJ tprhuizapy; cz;ik vd njhpa tUfpwJ."

4.3 Thus, it can be seen that the very charge is laid on the assumption that there is a particular procedure in the State of Singapore and that procedure is not fully followed by the accused persons while adjudicating the power of attorney and registering the document. The Court also takes judicial notice of the procedure our country is concerned concerning the jurisdiction of Singapore is that the documents can be attested either before the Notary Public appointed in the said jurisdiction or before the Indian Embassy in that State. Therefore, the power of attorney is notarized and the same is sent by post/courier to India, upon verifying the said postal cover and the date on which the document came into India, the concerned Sub Registrar has adjudicated the same.

4.4 After verifying the original postal/courier cover and adjudicating as per the process, the primary and straight method by which the allegation of the defacto complainant and her husband can be proved is to get specimen signatures from the defacto complainant and her husband and verify the specimen signatures with the signature found in the power of attorney document. If it is found to be forged, then specimen signatures/handwritings from the accused or such other persons on whom there is suspicion has to be obtained and then compare the impugned document and thus establish the forgery. No investigation whatsoever has been done in this regard and as extracted above, the charge sheet is filed on the erroneous assumption that the procedure is not followed. Even taking the averments in the final report at face value, that the procedure as maintained in the Singapore Embassy is not followed during attestation of the document, the same would not render the document itself as a 'false document'.

4.5 When the original power of attorney document is very much available in India and when the same is admittedly in the hands of accused No.4, without even attempting to seize the document, the investigation is done and the charge sheet is filed. Secondly, a strange procedure of sending letters to the Embassy and getting the reply thereof is resorted to without taking recourse as to the procedure mandated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This apart, it can further be seen that the original title deeds have already come to the custody of the purchasers. No explanation whatsoever is there in the FIR, nothing is also said about the same in the 161 statements. Only now the counsel had attempted to make an explanation.

4.6 The second factor is that the defacto complainant's husband is very much present in India. The said fact cannot be controverted. An unimpeachable document of his election as the Panchayat Union Councillor is produced before this court. The said fact is not denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant and her husband notice the developments in their property being made by third parties in the form of huge commercial buildings over a long period and keeping silent, it goes without saying that the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

4.7 The second factor is that they had also filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. They have undervalued their property paid only fewer Court fees and tried to number the suit. When the Court rejected the same and returned the plaint to be presented before the appropriate forum in the year 2020. Now we are in the year 2024, and still, no steps have been taken by them. Further, the sale deeds are all executed pursuant to the power of attorney which was adjudicated in the year 2002. The sale deeds are presented and registered during the years 2006 to 2009. Further alienations and developments in the properties have been taking place. The complaint is very belatedly filed in the year 2017. All these facts point out to the inescapable conclusion that the entire invocation of the criminal jurisdiction by the defacto complainant and her husband is nothing but an attempt to renegotiate or to get an additional consideration from the original alienees by creating a cloud over their title and as such is an abuse of process of law.

4.8 In view thereof, finding that even by taking all the materials which are produced by the prosecution along with the final report at face value, I find that none of the offences are made out and I have no other alternative than to quash the proceedings. The order of quashing these proceedings will not preclude the defacto complainant from representing the suit and independently establishing that the power deeds are forged. E. The Result:

¶5Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.408 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, shall stand quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

23.08.2024 NCC : Yes sji To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Wing, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. sji

23.08.2024