Venkatachalapathy and Others vs State and Others

P.N. Prakash, J—This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 54 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police.

When the matter came up before this Court on 22.04.2015, Mr. KTS Sivakumar, learned counsel appeared before this court and submitted that the 6th petitioner/Subbulakshmi had not filed the petition at all and that her signature in the vakalt has been forged and this quash petition has been filed. He also filed an affidavit sworn to by Subbulakshmi in which, paragraphs No. 7 and 8 it is stated as follows:

"7. I submit that, the 3rd phase of fraud, once again petitioners 1 to 5 herein committed by filing the petition and Vakalath in my name before this Hon''ble Court in this Crl. O.P. No. 966 of 2015 on 07.01.2015 by forging my signature. The continuous fraud and forgery committed by the petitioners 1 to 5 clearly shows that they have become habitual offender capable of committing forgery and fraud both inside and outside the Court. The advocates appointed by the petitioners 1 to 5 herein in O.S. No. 2216/2014, in O.S. No. 402 of 2014 and in this Crl. O.P. No. 966 of 2015 are all strangers to me. The signatures in those vakalaths are all forged, when my vakalaths are forged, obviously the connected suit and applications and its pleadings are all also not with my instructions.

I submit that unless the vakalat alleged to be filed on behalf of me by advocate Mr. S. Ramesh before this Hon''ble Court is revoked. I will be put into much loss and hardship. Besides, I pray before this Court to initiate serious action against petitioner 1 to 5 for having indulged in the act of forging my signatures and giving false statement from the Munsif Court, Coimbatore (O.S. No. 2216/2012 and O.S. No. 402/2014) to this Hon''ble Court in the Crl. O.P. No. 966/2015 and proper directions may be given in this regard in the interest of justice."

Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submits that the petitioners have been continuously playing fraud upon the Courts by filing various applications and that they have even filed a suit in the name of 6th petitioner/Subbulakshmi before the learned 1st Additional District Munsif Coimbatore in O.S. No. 2216 of 2012.

Since Mr. S. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners on record was not present on 22.04.2015, this Court posted the case today with a direction to Mr. K.T.S. Sivakumar, learned counsel to produce his client before this Court and directed the Registry to print the names of all the petitioners along with the names of the counsel on record. Accordingly, today, the cause list reflects the names of all the petitioners as well as the counsel on record and when the matter is called, the learned counsel on record is not present. Mr. C. Mohanraj, learned counsel represented on behalf of Mr. S. Ramesh and sought for time.

The 6th petitioner/Subbulakshmi is present before this Court and she was identified by Mr. Karunakaran, the Inspector of Police, who is the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 54/2014. The 6th petitioner/Subbulakshmi stated in the open Court that she did not engage the counsel viz., Mr. Ramesh for filing this quash application. She also stated that she would sign in Tamil but the signature found in the vakalat is in English and that has also been attested by the another advocate.

As regards the merits of the case, the case in Crime No. 54 of 2014 has been registered on a complaint lodged by one Sathyamoorthy (2nd respondent in this petition) for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 471, 210 r/w. 420 IPC by the respondent police.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent/police, in which it is stated as follows:

"It is submitted that one Late. Ganapathy Gounder had executed the registered "Will" dated 20.05.1963 which was duly registered as Document No. 16/1963 in favour of his four son''s namely 1) Duraisamy 2) Rangasamy 3) Muthusamy 4) Rathinasamy and his two daughters 1) Sivagamiammal 2) Thulasiammal all the accused conjointly prepared a forged "Will" purported to have been executed by Ganapathy Gounder on 19.12.1964 well before presenting the same in District Munsif Court using the same as genuine and filed in O.S. No. 2216/2012 by A3 to A7 as plaintiff and accused 1 and 2 as respondent suppressing other legal heirs knowing pretty well that the other legal has of deceased as Ganapathy Gounder including the defacto complainant and with the common motive deceive including the defacto complainant obtained a compromise degree in lok adalat in their favour. It is pertinent note that the accused A1 had sold the part of ''B'' scheduled property as per the "Will" of Late Ganapathy Gounder registered 16/1963. One such property was sold to one Vijayakumar in year 2007 vide Document 3192/2007. The defacto complainant, Sudhakar, Shanthi and Rajan had purchased the said property from said Vijayakumar. The Document No. 14355/2011 is one among the said such Documents in favour of defacto complainant. While it is apparent that in the suit 2216/2012. Which was initiated by the accused 3 to 7 against A1 and A2 accused had produce a forged "Will" of said Late. Ganapathy Gounder purported to have been signed and executed by him on 19.12.1973 infringing the right of defacto complainant as scheduled in 1963 "Will" being agreed with same on verification with the Sub-Registrar Office, Annur. The defacto complainant came to aware such forgery had preferred this complainant against all the accused for having forged the signature of Late. Ganapathy Gounder and knowing pretty well that said Ganapathy Gounder had expired before preparation of said forged "Will" also obtained death certificate of said Late. Ganapathy Gounder to be registered on the proceedings of Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi by false representation and used the said fabricated forged "Will" in the suit 2216/2012 obtained a compromise degree infringing the right of defacto complainant over the properties which he owns by virtue of the "Will" executed in the year 1963. Hence a case Cr. No. 54/2014, U/s. 465, 467, 471, 210 r/w. 420 IPC was registered and investigated."

Since the allegations requires a full fledged investigation, the FIR in Crime No. 54 of 2014 cannot be quashed in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp . Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

By dismissing the quash petition on merits this case cannot be given a quietus in view of the allegation made by the 6th petitioner that she has not signed the vakalat. For giving an opportunity to Mr. S. Ramesh, the counsel on record to give his explanation, post the case under the caption ''for orders'' on 02.06.2015.