Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.01.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD). Nos.13393 and 13396 of 2022 C.Seethalakshmi ... Petitioner / Accused No.5 Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. ... 1st Respondent 2.P.Perumpudaiyar ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in S.C. No.105 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankarapandian For R1 : Mr.A.Albert Jaems, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr.A.Robinson 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 ORDER This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings pending in S.C. No.105 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had purchased the subject property from one Beeman through a registered sale deed dated 30.12.2011. A1 was a tenant under Beeman. The said Beeman had initiated eviction proceedings and an order of eviction was also passed. E.P.No.1452 of 2010 was filed to execute the order. The eviction order was confirmed upto this Court. With an intention to grab the property, A1 is said to have executed a settlement deed in favour of A2. A3 and A4 stood as witnesses. The petitioner (A5) was the advocate who had prepared the settlement deed. A6 in this case is the Sub Registrar who had registered the document. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2022. On completion of investigation, police report was filed before the Court below and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the Court below took cognizance for offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 420 and 471 of IPC. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A5, has challenged the proceedings before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4. The main allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in her capacity as an advocate, after knowing fully well that A1 did not have any right over the property, helped A1 to execute a settlement deed in favour of his wife A2 and also took steps to register the document. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner knowing fully well about the status of the eviction proceedings, helped A1 and A2 in committing the offence and thereby, deprived the defacto complainant from getting possession of the property. 5. The charges against the petitioner is for cheating and forgery. On carefully reading the materials available before this Court, this Court does not find that the ingredients of the offence of forgery has been made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have helped A1 and A2 in the execution of the document. The ingredients under Section 464 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 of IPC has not been made out and therefore, the other offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 must automatically fall. 6. Even insofar as the offence of cheating is concerned, the petitioner has merely rendered her professional assistance to the other accused persons and hence, it cannot be held that the petitioner had any wrongful gain out of this transaction except the receipt of fees from her clients. 7. This Court is of the view that the petitioner should have been more careful in drafting the settlement deed since A1 was only a tenant in the property and he has dealt with the property and executed a settlement in favour of his wife. Hence, on the face of it, the very title of A1 is in question. This Court, therefore, expects that the petitioner will be more careful in discharging her function as an advocate in future. 8. In the light of the above discussion, the continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner will only result in abuse of process of law which requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 9. In the result, the proceedings in S.C. No.105 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli is hereby quashed insofar the petitioner is concerned. It is brought to the notice of this Court that A1 to A4 also challenged the proceedings which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 23.12.2022 and thereafter, it was also confirmed by the Apex Court. Hence, the proceedings survives insofar as A1 to A4 and A6 are concerned. Therefore, the Court below shall proceed further with the case and complete the proceedings in S.C.No.105 of 2022 within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. . 24.01.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pal 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 To 1.The II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli . 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J. pal Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19579 of 2022 24.01.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis