R. Palani and Others vs The State and Ethiraju

V. Periya Karuppiah, J.—This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking to quash the FIR registered Crime No. 2592 of 2010 on the file of the first Respondent police.

Heard Mr. K. Jeganathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. L. Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first Respondent and also Mr. B. Rajesh Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent/de-facto complainant.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit in his argument that a case has been registered on the complaint given by the second Respondent filed on behalf of his wife, in Crime No. 2592 of 2010, against the Petitioners, who are ranked as A-1 to A-9. He would further submit in his argument that the Petitioners are stated to have committed fraud against the wife of the second Respondent for getting the execution of a power deed, dated 25.02.2010, under the guise of obtaining signatures before the Sub-Registrar, as if it is required for a sale deed, which are not correct. He would further submit in his argument that the second Respondent''s wife, namely, Uma, had actually executed a power of attorney on 25.02.2010 in favour of the first Petitioner and the said power deed was registered promptly, and as per the provisions of Sections 32 and 33(4) of the Registration Act, the production of the said registered document would prove the execution on the face of it and therefore, the said execution cannot be questioned by the executant/second Respondent''s wife, by filling a false complaint through her husband. He would further submit in his argument that on the basis of the said power deed, a sale deed has been executed by the first Petitioner in favour of the second Petitioner and the second Petitioner had deposited the said title deed and obtained loan from the eighth Petitioner and all those transactions would go to show that the power deed was validly executed by the second Respondent''s wife, namely, Uma in favour of the first Petitioner and it was acted upon. He would further submit in his argument that the wife of the second Respondent did not come forward to cancel the power deed, and it can be presumed u/s 114 of Evidence Act that the registered power deed is a correct document and only upon setting aside the said power deed, the offence can be taken cognizance against the Petitioners. He would also submit in his argument that a suit has been filed by the Petitioner in O.S. No. 224 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Theni, and it is pending and when the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the dispute, the complaint cannot be entertained by the Respondent police. Therefore, he would request the Court to quash the FIR as not sustainable and to pass further orders.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first Respondent would submit in his argument that the complaint has been registered by the first Respondent police against the Petitioners on the face of the allegations made in the complaint. He would further submit in his argument that the allegations made in the complaint would go to show that there was a conspiracy in between the Petitioners to grab the property from the hands of the second Respondent''s wife and therefore, they have acted in collusion with each other to obtain a power deed on the date of execution of the sale deed by the wife of the second Respondent in favour of some other persons and thereby, they have colluded to create the power deed with the document writer, who had cheated the second Respondent''s wife. He would further submit in his argument that the allegations made in the complaint would show a strong prima facie case regarding the criminality of all the Petitioners and therefore, they have been ranked as accused. He would further submit in his argument that whether there is any criminality or not could be ascertained only after gathering the evidence from the Forensic Science Experts regarding the alleged signatures of the wife of the second Respondent and comparing the same with the admitted signatures. He would further submit in his argument that it is purely a question of fact and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no criminality attached with the execution of the power deed merely because it was acted upon by the power agent which was not consented by the second Respondent''s wife. Therefore, he would request the Court that the FIR registered in Crime No. 2592 of 2010 cannot be quashed on the face of the allegations made therein and the claim of the Petitioners have to be dismissed.

The learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent would submit in his argument that he has given a complaint on behalf of his wife, namely, Uma that the power deed has been clandestinely obtained by the document writer as if there were two signatures left for the sale deed to be obtained for her on the same day before the same Sub-Registrar Office and on the foot of such false representation given by the document writer, the wife of the second Respondent had put those signatures in the registration of the said power deed, but the other signatures found in the power deed had been manipulated by the said document writer with the active collusion of the first Petitioner and the other persons, who had transacted with the property immediately after the execution of the power deed. He would further submit in his argument that the sequence in executing the power deed and the other sale deed and filing of the suit, would go to show that all the Petitioners have conspired together for the purpose of grabbing the property from the hands of the second Respondent''s wife. He would also submit in his argument that the Court should be very careful in quashing the FIR and the criminality in the FIR are on the face of the allegations made therein and the investigation is carried on for gathering the evidence and the FIR can not be quashed at the preliminary stage. He would cite the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.M. Sharan, in support of his argument. He would further submit in his argument that the facts are to be ascertained in the case by comparing the signatures put by the de-facto complainant''s wife, Uma, in the power deed with the admitted signatures, except the signatures put by her before the Sub-Registrar and that, unless the Handwriting Expert''s Report is obtained, it cannot be decided regarding the criminality of the Petitioners stated in the complaint and therefore, it is not possible for this Court to quash the FIR at this stage. Therefore, he would request the Court that the claim of the Petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR may be dismissed.

I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on all the sides.

The petition has been filed by the Petitioners, who are ranked as A-1 to A-9 in a case registered on the complaint given by the second Respondent in Crime No. 2592 of 2010, on the file of the first Respondent registered against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 120(B), 147, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC. The main crux of the case is that the wife of the de-facto complainant, namely, Uma was taken to Sub-Registrar Office, on 25.02.2010, for buying a property for her and for that, instructions were given to the document writer, namely, Ramesh, who is ranked as A-3 and the said instructions were meant for the purchase of sale deed and the said Ramesh had obtained several signatures of the wife of the second Respondent at his office on the said date and he had also obtained several signatures at the Registrar Office from her and had instructed her that the transaction was over and asked her to go to her house, but when they were about to leave the Sub-Registrar office, the said Ramesh came and asked the wife of the second Respondent that certain signatures were left to be signed before the Sub-Registrar and accordingly, he took her before the Sub-Registrar and obtained the same in the presence of the Sub-Registrar and accordingly, a thumb was also put before the Sub-Registrar. The said act of the third accused stated to be on behalf of the first Petitioner and other purchaser from the first Petitioner and other co-Petitioners, who had conspired together for the purpose of execution of the power deed without the knowledge of the wife of the second Respondent. It has been contended that except the signatures and finger print put before the Sub-Registrar, all other signatures found in the alleged power deed were fabricated and forged by the said third accused with the active collusion of the other Petitioners, in order to show that the power deed was executed by the wife of the second Respondent/de-facto complainant. Therefore, the said point to be investigated by the first Respondent police and if it is found that the other signatures of the second Respondent''s wife, namely, Uma, in the power deed except the signatures and a finger print put before the Sub-Registrar, are fake, forged and fabricated, necessary charge sheet shall be filed by the police and the Petitioners would be found guilty of the offences said in the complaint. If those signatures other than the signatures and finger print put before the Sub-Registrar are found to have belonged to the second Respondent''s wife, then the criminality of the Petitioners cannot be imputed and no charge sheet could be filed against the Petitioner.

The submissions regarding the presumption under Registration Act and the Evidence Act would go to show regarding the presumption of a registered document promptly registered or its genuiness of the execution is admitted. As regards the execution of power deed, it has been questioned on the exercise of mis-representation as well as the fraud on the de-facto complainant by the third accused with the active collusion of others and therefore, the said presumption cannot be applied till such facts are found in the wake of gathering of evidence.

The judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.M. Sharan, laid down as follows:

Inherent powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this Section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

On a careful understanding of the said dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, this Court should exercise much caution before coming to any conclusion of quashing a FIR and such a power should sparingly be used. In the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, if we approach the present case, I could see that the crux of the said case should have been decided only after finding the fact as to the fabrication or creation of the signatures of the de-facto complainant''s wife, Uma shall be found and thereafter only any other presumptions or other considerations regarding the quashment of FIR could be worked out.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the disputed signatures were sent for Forensic Science experts opinion (handwriting experts) and only after obtaining the report from the Forensic Experts, it can be decided about the criminality of the Petitioners.

In the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a stage to exercise the discretion of the Court to quash the FIR by drawing the presumption of a registered document. As pointed out in many cases, every civil case will not be absolutely free from the criminality and present case registered on the complaint of the second Respondent would, on the face of the complaint, go to show that the signatures of the wife of the de-facto complainant has been fabricated and forged on a conspiracy had in between accused persons. It is purely a question of fact and without deciding the said aspect, it is not possible to issue a direction of quashment of the FIR.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR as asked for by the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Petition filed by the Petitioners seeking for quashment of the FIR is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.