PETITIONERS CANNOT SEEK SHELTER BY STATING THAT WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS AN ACT OF ANTI-DATING AND NOT AN OFFENCE OF FORGERY OR CREATION OF A FALSE DOCUMENT.: MADRAS HIGH COURT
The High Court of Madras passed a judgment on 27 April 2023 stating that petitioners cannot seek shelter by stating that what is involved in this case is an act of anti-dating and not an offence of forgery or creation of a false document.It was stated in the case of R.SANTHOSH Vs. THE STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (RL OP.1807/2021) which was passed by the single judge bench comprising of HONOURABLE JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The first accused in this case is V.Radhakrishnan. The first petitioner / second accused is the son of V.Radhakrishnan born through the third accused R.Vimala, who is the second petitioner. The second respondent / defacto complainant is the son of one V.Radhakrishnan who was born in the year 1968 through one Savithiri R.Naidu. During the year 2004 the first accused V.Radhakrishnan settled certain properties situated at Sowripalayam, Peelamedu, Race Course and C.Punjai Puliampatty, Nallur in favour of the de facto complaint. Subsequently the de facto complainant settled the said properties in favour of his mother Savithri R.Naidu. The revenue records have also been mutated in favour of Savithri R.Naidu. 3.1 On 21.06.2006 the first accused executed a memorandum of family arrangement among the accused 2 and 3 and for which the fourth and fifth accused stood as witnesses. During the year 2007 due to some misunderstanding the first accused abandoned the de facto complainant and his mother Savithiri R.Naidu and cancelled the previous settlement deeds executed in favour of the second respondent and his mother and settled the same in favour of the second accused. Thereafter, the second accused filed a suit in O.S. No.2360 of 2007 before the District Munsif, Coimbatore for bare injunction. The said suit was withdrawn subsequently with a liberty to file a fresh one. The first accused was in good terms and his relationship with the second respondent and his mother was cordial till 27.10.2007 and thereafter he abandoned them. Taking advantage of the same the accused 1 to 5 entered into a criminal conspiracy to create a forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of invalidating the settlement deed in favour of the de facto complainant and to cancel the previous Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.06.2006. The accused tampered the stamp papers and created two Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.02.1993 and 29.06.2006. They used the same in O.S. No.24 of 2008 before the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore as genuine documents. The forged documents are shown as genuine documents before the Court and hence charge sheet has been filed against the accused.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The petitioners cannot seek shelter by stating that what is involved in this case is an act of anti-dating and not an offence of forgery or creation of a false document. A document is created without the actual participation of the party to it and the forensic analysis also supports the said fact. So it cannot be said that there are no sufficient materials available to subject the accused under the process of trial. Even if the investigation authority might omit to lay the charge sheet under relevant provisions of law, that will not preclude the Court from framing the charges appropriately, if the materials available on record makes out the same. Hence it is for the Court to frame appropriate charges basing upon the materials produced. 16. It does not lie at the convenience of the petitioners to get rid of the proceedings on grounds which are not acceptable. In fact the main ground on which this petition is filed, has already been covered in the earlier judgment of this Court and especially the question of law with regard to custodia legis has also been settled in the very same judgment of the Supreme court referred by the petitioners and the respondents as discussed above. In view of the above stated reasons, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.