IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 15.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.5899 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 B.Nagalakshmi .. Petitioner Vs 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the respondents for further investigation based on F.I.R. In Crime No.98 of 2008 by some other agency. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R This petition seeks a direction for further investigation in Crime No.98 of 2008 by some other agency other than the 2nd respondent. 2.Owing to illegal conduct of several persons, on the strength of forged, fabricated documents and misrepresentations, the petitioner was induced into parting with the huge sum of Rs.62,62,000/- as consideration for sale of property under four documents of sale. Making it appear that the accused had title to the property and duly transferring interest in favour of the petitioner, the four documents were registered and a sum of Rs.62,62,000/- was cheated of him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.On these allegations, an FIR was registered in Crime No.98 of 2008 and upon investigation, the 2nd respondent had filed a charge sheet against six persons for offences under Section 419, 466, 467, 468 and 471 as also such offences r/w.120(B) and 420 IPC under charge sheet dated 31.08.2009. An earlier application for transfer of investigation moved in Crl.O.P.No.20337 of 2009 came to be dismissed on 30.09.2009 on the submission that the investigation was over and final report has been filed before the concerned Court. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that further investigation is necessary in the matter since the Sub-Registrar in whose office offending documents have been registered had been hand-in-glove with the other accused and issued a false encumbrance certificate which facilitated the commission of crime by the other accused and hence, he also ought to be arrayed as an accused in the case. Reliance is placed on the sworn statement of the complainant towards pressing such demand. 5.I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6.On consideration, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for issue of direction as prayed for. A perusal of the entire materials reveals that proper investigation has been conducted in the case and those involved in the commission of offences stand duly arrayed as accused. The charge sheet itself reflects that the encumbrance certificate which is complained of was produced by the accused to the complainant. When the entire transaction is the result of fabricated and forged documents, the possibility of the encumbrance certificate also having been one such document cannot be ruled out. On the mere suspicion of the petitioner a person cannot be arrayed as an accused. In fact, the final report makes it clear that the concerned Sub-Registrar also was taken in by the accused in the commission of offence. In these circumstances, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. gm https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.I. Franklin, Advocate, Sr. 17382 Crl.O.P.No.5899 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 LA (CO) kk 26/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/