HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4153 of 2025 1. Muthuraja 2. P.Alagusundaram 3. Vijayalakshmi 4. Perumal Mathimalar 5. K.Shanmugathai 6. K.Raja Karthick 7. E.Venkatesh … Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4153 of 2025
1. Muthuraja
2. P.Alagusundaram
3. Vijayalakshmi
4. Perumal Mathimalar
5. K.Shanmugathai
6. K.Raja Karthick
7. E.Venkatesh
… Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7

Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by. the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City.
Crime No.2/2024.
…. Respondent / Complainant
2. Raja Muthuramalingam …. Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No. 1331 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, and quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand
For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
For R-2 : Mr.Gandhi,
Senior counsel,
For Gandhi Associates
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1331 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 7 in the said calendar case. The prosecution has laid the final report for the offences under Sections 120(b), 409, 465, 467 and 468 IPC. During the pendency of the quash petition, the fifth accused, who is the purchaser under the impugned sale deeds, is stated to have died.
3. The controversy, though projected by the petitioners as apure civil dispute relating to title, has been opposed by the prosecution as well as by the de-facto complainant on the ground that the accusation is not confined to a rival claim over immovable property, but extends to the making of a false complaint regarding loss of parent document, misuse of CSR acknowledgment, and the alleged deception practised upon the Registration Department to secure registration of sale deeds. This Court is therefore called upon to examine whether the allegations in the final report, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting trial, or whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court.
Case of the Prosecution:
4. According to the prosecution, one Perumal had purchased plots bearing Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, admeasuring 27.50 cents in Survey No.579/1, situated at Kulavanigapuram Village,
Melapalayam, Tirunelveli, under a registered parent document. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 22.02.2007, the said Perumal executed a registered Will in favour of the second respondent/de-facto complainant, namely Raja Muthuramalingam. The prosecution would also state that the original title deed relating to the subject property had been handed over to the de-facto complainant at the time of execution of the Will and that thereafter he had been in possession and enjoyment of the property.
5. Perumal died on 11.05.2018. Upon his demise, the Will allegedly became operative. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 4, who are the legal heirs of late Perumal, were fully aware of the execution of the Will and also knew that the original parent document was not in their custody. Nevertheless, with an intention to defeat the claim of the beneficiary under the Will and to create title in favour of the fifth accused, they allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy.
6. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the prosecution alleges that the first accused lodged a false complaint before the Surandai Police Station on 11.07.2023 as though the original parent deed had been lost at Surandai Bus Stand. The police, after enquiry, did not issue any Non-Traceable Certificate and are stated to have only closed the complaint, advising the complainant therein to approach the appropriate authority. However, on the strength of the CSR acknowledgment relating to the said complaint, accused Nos.1 to 4 executed three sale deeds in favour of the fifth accused under Document Nos.6989, 7037 and 7060 of 2023. Accused Nos.6 and 7 stood as attesting witnesses to the said documents. It is further alleged that the registration was facilitated even though the mandatory supporting material for loss of original parent document was absent.
7. On the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.02 of 2024 for the offences under Section 465,467 and 468 IPC. After investigation, the respondent police filed a final report, which has been taken on file as C.C.No.1331 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli for the offences under Section 465,467,468,409 and 120(b) IPC.
Grounds for Quash:
8. The petitioners have assailed the prosecution mainly on the following grounds:
8.1. First, the petitioners would contend that the execution ofthe sale deeds by accused Nos.1 to 4 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, amount to forgery or making of a false document within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 IPC. Their case is that accused Nos.1 to 4 are the natural legal heirs of late Perumal and, on his demise, they believed that the property had devolved upon them. Therefore, even assuming that such belief was erroneous, the execution of sale deeds by persons claiming title in themselves does not constitute forgery.
8.2. Secondly, the petitioners place strong reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another , and would submit that where a person executes a document describing the property as his own, he neither impersonates another nor claims to act on behalf of another, and therefore such execution cannot be treated as making a false document.
8.3. Thirdly, the petitioners would submit that the very foundation of the de-facto complainant’s claim is the alleged Will dated 22.02.2007, whose genuineness is seriously disputed by them. According to the petitioners, the Will is itself suspicious; the signature of Perumal is disputed; the Will was registered in a different Sub-Registrar Office; and the beneficiary is a distant relative, whereas Perumal had four legal heirs. Therefore, the rival claims of title can be adjudicated only before the competent civil Court and not in a criminal prosecution.
8.4. Fourthly, it is contended that the de-facto complainant has already initiated a civil suit in respect of the same property, and therefore the present criminal case is only a pressure tactic to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. The petitioners would thus contend that the criminal prosecution is vitiated by mala fides and is an abuse of process of law.
8.5. Fifthly, with specific reference to accused Nos.6 and 7, it is argued that they are only attesting witnesses to the documents and that mere attestation, without more, would not attract criminal liability for forgery or conspiracy.
Written Submissions of the 2nd Respondent / De-facto
Complainant:
9.1. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, since the final report contains specific allegations disclosing a prima facie case. He would emphasize that the prosecution is not based merely on the execution of sale deeds by rival claimants to the property. The gravamen of the allegation, according to him, is that accused Nos.1 to 4, with full knowledge of the Will and the custody of the original document with the de-facto complainant, fabricated a false narrative of loss of the parent document, approached the Surandai Police Station, obtained a CSR acknowledgment, and thereafter used the same to facilitate the registration of sale deeds in favour of the fifth accused.
9.2. The learned counsel would further submit that the statement of the District Registrar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a mere CSR acknowledgment would not justify registration in the absence of a proper Non-Traceable Certificate. Therefore, the act of presenting the CSR as though it were sufficient for registration itself constitutes a deceptive step in furtherance of the criminal design.
9.3. The learned counsel for the second respondent would distinguish the judgment in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another by contending that in the present case, there are attendant acts of deceit practised on public authorities. According to him, this is not a case of a bare transfer of property by a person claiming title in himself, but a case of securing registration by suppressing material facts and by using a false complaint as a supporting device. He would further submit that civil and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously and that the pendency of a civil suit can never by itself be a ground to quash a criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose criminality.
9.4. In support of the said submissions, reliance has been placed upon Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., , and Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi), to contend that the existence of civil remedy is no bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings where the basic ingredients of the offence are disclosed.
Arguments on Either Side:
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the essence of the prosecution is only that accused Nos.1 to 4 executed sale deeds as legal heirs of Perumal. He would reiterate that even a dishonest claim of title does not amount to forgery unless there is impersonation, false authority, or alteration of an existing document. The learned counsel would add that the alleged complaint regarding loss of original document cannot convert a civil title dispute into a criminal case of forgery. He would also point out that the de-facto complainant himself had issued legal notice, filed a civil suit, and sought injunction, which would show that the dispute is fundamentally civil in nature. It is further argued that the signatures in the Will are disputed and that the petitioners have already taken a stand before the civil Court that the Will is forged.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/de-facto complainant would submit that the prosecution is not founded upon a mere rival claim of title, but on a chain of acts intended to deceive. He would submit that the accused, despite knowing that the parent document was not with them, made a false complaint of loss, obtained a CSR acknowledgment, and used the same before the Registration Department. Such conduct, according to the learned counsel, demonstrates the dishonest intention and criminal conspiracy underlying the transaction.
12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would adopt the submissions of the second respondent and would add that the materials collected during investigation, including the statements of the District Registrar and the officials attached to Surandai Police Station, furnish sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the trial. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the quash petition.
Point for Consideration:
13. In the light of the rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the allegations contained in the final report in C.C.No.1331 of 2024, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners so as to warrant continuation of the prosecution, or whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court?
Analysis:
14. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only when the Court is satisfied that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law or where the allegations even if accepted in toto do not constitute any offence. At the stage of quash, the Court does not undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence nor adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
15. The central plank of the petitioners’ case rests upon Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another . There can be no quarrel with the proposition laid down therein that when a person executes a document conveying property as his own, even if he is not the real owner, he is not by that act alone making a “false document” within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. The distinction drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court between a false claim of title and impersonation or false authority is well settled.
16. However, the present case cannot be tested only through the narrow lens of the execution of the sale deeds. The final report alleges something more. The allegation is that prior to execution of the sale deeds, the first accused set in motion a false narrative that the parent document had been lost; that he approached the Surandai Police Station for that purpose; that no Non-Traceable Certificate was issued after enquiry; and that nevertheless the CSR acknowledgment was projected before the Registration Department to facilitate registration of the sale deeds. The prosecution has also relied upon statements of the police personnel and of the District Registrar to show that a mere CSR acknowledgment would not suffice in the normal course for the purpose for which it was allegedly used.
17. Therefore, the issue is not merely whether the petitioners could claim themselves to be legal heirs and execute sale deeds. The further allegation is whether, in aid of such execution, they made false representations to public authorities and misused a complaint mechanism to create supporting material for the registration. Whether such allegations are true, whether the petitioners had knowledge of the Will, whether the de-facto complainant was indeed in possession of the original title deed, whether the complaint about missing document was genuine, and whether the accused had acted with the requisite mens rea are all matters which lie in the domain of evidence and trial.
18. The petitioners would contend that the Will itself is forged and that the civil Court alone must decide the title. This Court agrees that the question of testamentary validity and ultimate title over the property are essentially matters for the competent civil forum. However, the existence of a civil dispute is not by itself a ground to quash a criminal prosecution if the complaint and final report disclose independent criminal acts. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd . and Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi) has repeatedly held that civil and criminal consequences may coexist and that the pendency of civil proceedings cannot be used as a shield to stifle a prosecution at the threshold where the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie made out.
19. As regards accused Nos.1 to 4, the materials in the final report disclose specific overt acts attributed to them. They are the executants of the impugned sale deeds. They are also the persons alleged to have set up title in themselves despite the existence of the Will and to have used the CSR acknowledgment in the registration process. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out against them.
20. As regards the fifth accused, it is brought to the notice of this Court that he has died during the pendency of the quash petition. Insofar as the prosecution against him is concerned, the proceedings necessarily stand abated.
21. The position of accused Nos.6 and 7 stands on a somewhat different footing. The only specific role attributed to them in the materials placed before this Court is that they signed as attesting witnesses in the impugned sale deeds. Mere attestation of a document, without specific material showing participation in the conspiracy, preparation of false material, or active role in the alleged deception practised on the authorities, would not by itself justify prosecution for the grave offences alleged. The final report, as presently placed, does not disclose any specific overt act beyond attestation. Criminal law cannot be allowed to rope in every witness to a document merely because the executants are facing a title-based criminal accusation coupled with allegations of deception. In the absence of clear and specific material to show meeting of minds or conscious participation in the alleged conspiracy, continuation of the prosecution as against accused Nos.6 and 7 would amount to abuse of process.
22. The contention of the second respondent that accused No.6, being the son of deceased accused No.5, may later assert rights over the property cannot be a legal ground to continue a criminal prosecution unless the ingredients of the alleged offences are independently made out against him. Criminal culpability must rest on specific material, not on apprehended future civil claims.
23. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution as against accused Nos.1 to 4 cannot be scuttled at the threshold. At the same time, the continuation of the proceedings as against accused Nos.6 and 7 is not justified on the present materials. Insofar as accused No.5 is concerned, the proceedings have abated by reason of his death.
24. The criminal process cannot be used to settle pure title disputes. Equally, the mere existence of a civil dispute cannot grant immunity where the allegations disclose a larger design involving false representations to public authorities and misuse of official process. The role attributed to each accused must therefore be separately examined. When such scrutiny is undertaken, this Court finds sufficient prima facie material to permit the prosecution to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 4, but not against accused Nos.6 and 7. The proceedings as against the deceased fifth accused cannot obviously survive.
25. Accordingly, this Court records the following findings:
(i) The final report discloses prima facie allegations against accused Nos.1 to 4 warranting a full-fledged trial.
(ii) The death of accused No.5 during the pendency of the proceedings renders the quash petition as against him infructuous, and the prosecution as against him stands abated.
(iii) Insofar as accused Nos.6 and 7 are concerned, the materials do not disclose any specific overt act beyond attestation of the documents, and hence the proceedings as against them are liable to be quashed.
26. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed on the following terms:
(i) The proceedings in C.C.No.1331 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, are quashed insofar as accused Nos.6 and 7 are concerned.
(ii) Insofar as accused No.5 is concerned, the petition is dismissed as infructuous in view of his death and the prosecution as against him shall stand abated.
27. The prayer for quashing the proceedings as againstaccused Nos.1 to 4 is dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, shall proceed with the case as against accused Nos. 1 to 4, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order, which are only for the purpose of deciding the present quash
petition.
28. Considering the nature of the dispute, the personal appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4 is dispensed with except for the following occasions:
(i) at the time of furnishing copies,
(ii) at the time of framing charges,
(iii) at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. / corresponding provision under BNSS,
(iv) at the time of pronouncement of judgment, and
(v) on such other dates as the learned trial Court may
specifically direct, if their presence is found absolutely necessary.
21.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml
CRL OP(MD)No.4153 of 2025
21.04.2026