Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (6) TMI 1804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er is to quash the FIR that has been registered against them for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 506(I) IPC. 2. The defacto complainant in this case is one Ashok Pandian. The case of the defacto complainant is that the property in question originally belonged to one Samuvel who has been shown as the second accused in this case. The said Samuvel sold 4.32 acres in favour of one Matheesa Pandian on 03.11.1986. He also sold the remaining portion to the extent of 4..26 acres in favour of Durai Pandian who is none other than the elder brother of the defacto complainant herein. Though both these documents were presented for registration, the transaction could not be fully completed for want of income tax clea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Second Appeals before the Principal Bench of this Courtin SA.Nos.1676, 1677 and 1677 of 2001. In the said Second Appeals, interim order of status quo was granted. The said second appeals are said to be still pending. 4. While so, the first accused Thiru.Karuppasamy Pandian is said to have prevailed upon Ashok Pandian and Durai Pandian to withdraw the litigation initiated by them before this Court. In contravention of the interim order of status quo passed by this Court, A2/Samuvel had sold the property in favour of one Palani Kumar/A3 hereien on 26.02.2007. Even prior to this, CONT Petition No.524 of 2005 came to be filed as Samuvel had conveyed portions of the land in question in favour of few other parties. The threats said to have been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929 (Mohd.Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar). The ratio has been laid down in the following manner : 13. The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused. 14. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. 16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Station. The said case also pertains to the very same property. In fact, a mere look at the facts would show that the very same sequence of events set out herein have been narrated in the said case also. The Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Court by order dated 28.04.2010 quashed the said F.I.R in Crl OP.No.36308 of 2007. In the said order, the defacto complainant herein was shown as the second respondent. But, he did not enter appearance in the said Crl.OP. The elder brother of the defacto complainant also lodged a criminal case in Crime No.9 of 2006 before the City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City, the first respondent herein. The said case also was on the same set of facts. It was closed as one of mistake of fact. R.C.S Notice was serve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates