1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 4335 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 Thiru.Subbaiah : Petitioner/Accused -7 Vs. 1. The State represented by Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Dindigul : 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. Thiru.Jothimani : 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No. 16 of 2010, dated 23.03.2010 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same. *** For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vairava Sundaram For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate For 2nd Respondent : Mr.P.R.Bala Subramaniam O R D E R Seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.16 of 2010, the petitioner has come forward with this Petition. 2. The said case has been registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 467, 468 and 420 of IPC. Altogether, there are 7 accused in this case. The petitioner is the seventh accused. 3. According to the allegations made in the FIR, the documents have been falsely created and thereby to cheat the de-facto complainant, who is the original owner of the property. The matter is under investigation. 4. In this Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only a document writer and without having any knowledge as to whether the document, he wrote was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 a forged document or a fabricated document or not, he wrote the same and therefore, the FIR should be quashed. 5. In my considered opinion, the said request cannot be considered to at all. Whether the petitioner was an innocent document writer, who wrote the document without knowing that the document was being fabricated by committing forgery or not, is a matter to be verified only during the investigation. For any reason, if it is brought to light during investigation that he had actually participated with the other accused knowing fully well about the forged document, surely there will be a charge sheet against him. 6. On the contrary, if it is found that the petitioner is only an innocent document writer who had no knowledge of fraud being committed by the first accused, surely the Investigating Officer will drop his name in the charge sheet. 7. In this Petition, it is for beyond the scope by this Court to appreciate and to give a clean chit to the petitioner. That course is not possible for this court while exercising the inherent power. 8. I do not find any merits in this Petition. Hence, this Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Dindigul 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai +1cc to M/s.P.R.Balasubramanian, Advocate, Sr.No.36569 vsg ssk/10.11.2011 /4c -2p/- Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 4335 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 20.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/