1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 13.09.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.745 of 2011 R.Purusothaman .. Petitioner/Complainant Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Navalpattu Police Station, Trichy District. .. Respondent/Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order in Cr.M.P.No.3204 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Trichirappalli. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER This petition filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order made in Cr.M.P.No.3204 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Trichirappalli. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the complainant in Cr.M.P.No.3204 of 2011. He filed a private complaint before the Court below under Sections 156(3) read with 200 Cr.P.C. In the compliant, it is alleged that the land in Survey No.182/3B at Suriyur Village belonged to Cauvery Ammal and Arumai Ammal. Both of them died on 23.05.1979 and 23.04.1986 respectively. The complainant purchased the property in question from the power of attorney one Rathinathammal, who got a Will dated 19.01.1983 from the said Arumai ammal. The third respondent therein objected the sale on the strength of a sale deed dated 09.05.2005 in her favour in which it is stated that the sale was effected on the strength of power deed dated 11.05.2004 executed by Cauvery Ammal and Arumai Ammal. Before the Court below, the learned counsel for the complainant had argued that the said Cauvery Ammal and Arumai Ammal died wayback in the years 1979 and 1986 respectively. It could not be stated that they had executed a power of attorney deed dated 11.05.2004. After hearing the arguments, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, has observed that since it is purely a civil dispute, there is no scope for cognizance of the offences. Hence, he dismissed that petition. Further, in the said order, he also observed that forgery and impersonation had to be established in the civil court and thereafter, the complainant is at liberty to take criminal action at any time against the accused. 4. The Court below has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1755 (SC), Suneet Gupta Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Anit Triloknath Sharma, wherein it is observed that in a civil dispute pure and simple between the parties was converted into a criminal offence by resorting to pressure tactics and by taking police aid and it was indeed abuse of process of law. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also referred to a decision of this Court reported in (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl)28, Mohan Nair Vs. M.S.Margasagayam, wherein it is observed that criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law and before issuing a process, a Criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. Further, in the case of S.D.Paulraj Vs. A.Balakrishnan, reported in 2010 (3) MWN (Cr.) 31, this Court has observed that there are two options open to the Court. One is to forward the complaint to the police and to investigate the matter and to report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and another is to deal with the same under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. 5. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is the allegation in the complaint that there are foul play of forgery and impersonation in the sale transactions. Hence, the Court below should have applied its mind to adopt any of the options available to it, that is to say, either under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, from the facts available in this case, the criminal action could be initiated. 6. In view of the above, the criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the order of the Court below. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichirappalli District is directed to apply his mind and then proceed the matter either in accordance with under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Judicial Magistrate III, Trichirappalli. Copy to : The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai ssm GH : 26.09.2011 : 2p/3c Crl.RC.(MD).No.745 of 2011 13.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/