TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen his case is that he was threatened, he cannot in the same breath contend that he was cheated. The two allegations simply do not go together. This Court is of the view that the offences of cheating and forgery are clearly not made out against the petitioners herein - this Court cannot believe that Durai Pandian or his brother would have fell intimidated by the so called threats held out by the first accused. In any event, the long delay in lodging this F.I.R in a case of this nature by itself renders the allegations inherently improbable. These Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. - Crl OP(MD)Nos.1682 of 2012 & 11750 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2012 in Crl OP(MD)No.1682 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2018 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me tax clearance certificate, the sale deeds could not be released. Since the defacto complainant and his brother developed an apprehension that the land may change hands, they filed O.S.Nos.1415 of 1987 and 1417 of 1987 before the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli against the Samuvel for restraining him from alienating the property. Likewise, the said Samuvel also filed O.S.No.64 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli against Matheesa Pandian, Durai Pandian and others. Matheesa Pandian also filed O.S.No.230 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli. Durai Pandian also filed OS.No.232 of 1995. All the three suits were tried together and disposed of by judgement and decree dated 09.07.1999. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) pointed out that there are clear materials to implicate the petitioners herein. He took this Court through the statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.PC. He also contended that this Court ought not to view with disfavor the delay occasioned in launching the impugned F.I.R. 7. This F.I.R has been primarily registered for the offences of cheating and forgery. The offences of cheating will be made out only if it is shown that the accused herein had dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to deliver any property to any person. In this case, the defacto complainant has no where averred that he was cheated and dishonestly induced to do any act. In fact, his case is that he was threat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eats against the defacto complainant and his brother in the year 2007. But, the F.I.R itself came to be registered only on 13.09.2011. Information was lodged on 11.09.2011. Thus, there is a gap of more than four years in lodging this complaint. The defacto complainant is said to be a realtor. His elder brother Durai Pandian is also a practicing lawyer in Chennai. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Thiru.Durai Pandian, the elder brother of the defacto complainant is practicing on the criminal side. Even in the F.I.R, the defacto complainant has not averred anywhere that he felt intimidated. 11.Therefore, this Court cannot believe that Durai Pandian or his brother would have fell intimidated by the so called threats held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
