Crl.O.P.No.18041 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.07.2026 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.No.18041 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.12025 of 2026 V.Sukumar .. Petitioner Versus 1. State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police, VILLUPURAM TOWN Police Station, Villupuram District. 2. P.Ashokkumar .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in pending proceedings in FIR in Crime No.151 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, Coimbatore and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.Kannamma For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for R1 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18041 of 2026 ORDER The prayer made in this Criminal Original Petition is to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.151 of 2026, dated 23.05.2026 registered for the alleged offence under Section 318(4) of B.N.S. 2. Upon perusing the F.I.R, the allegation is that when the petitioner and the second respondent entered into a transaction of sale of a land and the transaction was at the stage of sale agreement, it is alleged that the petitioner had forged the signature of the second respondent and got Electricity Board connection without the authorisation of the second respondent. Further, the second respondent’s signature has been forged and applications have been made before the D.T.C.P authorities for approval of the layout. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the entire transaction is one of sale and is civil in nature, the criminal complaint cannot be entertained. As far as the electricity connection is concerned, the same is only obtained in the name of the second respondent. Even with reference to the allegation relating to D.T.C.P, it is only a presumption and there is absolutely no material for any forgery to be 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18041 of 2026 committed by the petitioner. 4. I have considered the said submissions and also heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent. 5. It is now clear that when the second respondent is making allegations, the Investigating Officer cannot pronounce upon or judge the allegations on the same day. If the signatures are not forged by the petitioner, certainly, it cannot result in any Final Report. In view thereof, since the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are factual in nature, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise before the Investigating Officer, if he chooses to or to contest at the appropriate stage, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the investigation be supervised by the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.07.2026 Neutral Citation : no grs 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18041 of 2026 To 1. The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station, Villupuram District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18041 of 2026 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. grs Crl.O.P.No.18041 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.12025 of 2026 13.07.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis