Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 10.09.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 25.09.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.Nos.9756, 12717, 12724 & 15044 of 2026

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6942, 8626, 8635, 9659 & 9661 of 2025

K.Venkata Subramanian

S/o.Late K.A Krishnan

No.27/10 Sri Lakshmi Apartments, Krishna

Road, New Perungalathur, Near Sekar Mahal,

Chennai - 600 063.

...Petitioner(s) in Crl.O.P.

No.9756 of 2026

B. Manimozhiyan,

Sub-Registrar (under Suspension)

Joint II Sub Registrar Office,

Tindivanam.

55/1(2), West Ratha Street,

Vasanthanagar Maanamadurai,

Sivaganga District – 630 606.

...Petitioner(s)in Crl.O.P.

No.12717 of 2026

R.Ravindranath

S/o. Ramasamy

No.108, Padikupam Road,

Pace Prana Appartment,

Anna Nagar Extension,

Chennai – 108.

...Petitioner(s)in Crl.O.P.

No.12724 of 2026

Page 1 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

S.Sabareesh

S/o. T.Subbiah,

No.248 D, Unique Apartment,

Parvati Nagar South 3

rd

Street,

Madampakkam, Chennai – 126.

...Petitioner(s)in Crl.O.P.

No.15044 of 2026

Vs

1.The State rep by its

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Metro II Crime Branch CID,

Egmore, Chennai.

OCU I FIR IN CR.No.2 of 2022

2.D.Kalaivani

W/o.N.R.Dhandapani

Old No.70, New No.24 Savarimuthu Street,

Mannadi, Chennai - 600 001

...Respondent(s) in all

Crl.O.Ps.

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records culminating in the

impugned C.C.NO.123 of 2026 pending on the file of the Learned XI

Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Saidapet, Chennai (Trial Court), quash

the same in so far as the Petitioners is concerned.

For Petitioner(s) in

Crl.O.P.No. 9756 of 2026:

Mr.A.Aravindan

For Petitioner(s) in

Crl.O.P.No. 12717 of 2026:

Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthy

For Mr. V.Aravind Karthikeyan

For Petitioner(s) in

Crl.O.P.No. 12724 of 2026:

Mr. N.Manokaran

For Mr. P.Krishnan

For Petitioner(s) in

Crl.O.P.No. 15044 of 2026:

Mr.P.Kumaresan, Senior Counsel

For Mr. M.Shreeraam

Page 2 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

For Respondent(s) in all

Crl.O.Ps.:

Mr.M.Dinesh

Government Advcate (Crl. Side) for R1

Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham for R2

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original petitions have been seeking to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2026 pending on the file of the

learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken

cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 448,

465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, as against the petitioners.

2.All the petitioners herein are arrayed as accused in

C.C.No.123 of 2026, pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15044 of

2026 is arrayed as A3; the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12717 of 2026 is

arrayed as A4; the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2026 is arrayed as A5;

and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2026 is arrayed as A6. All the

petitioners have filed the respective petitions seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2026 pending before the learned XI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Since the relief sought for in

all these petitions arises out of the same proceedings, this Court deems it

appropriate to dispose of all the petitions by way of this common order.

Page 3 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent

lodged a complaint alleging that the first accused, in collusion with A2 to

A7 and others, fabricated Sale Deed Document No.3994 of 1975 dated

20.10.1975 by converting a mortgage deed into a sale deed in the records

of the Sub-Registrar Office, Tambaram. It is further alleged that,

thereafter, the accused made corrections in the index registers and

uploaded the alleged sale deed as a genuine document. Based on the said

document, A1 allegedly obtained patta on 18.10.2020 in respect of

Survey Nos.230/1B, 125/1A and 125/1C, claiming a total extent of about

123/128 cents, even though no such sale deed was available in the records

of the Sub-Registrar Office, Tambaram.

4.It is further alleged that the proposals for uploading and

carrying out corrections in the relevant records were initiated and

processed using the user IDs and passwords of the concerned registration

officials, including A2 to A6, despite their alleged knowledge of the

forgery. It is also alleged that A7, the Village Administrative Officer,

supported A1 by accepting and recommending the forged document for

issuance of patta and by issuing land tax receipts for a period of 30 years

on the very same day. The prosecution further alleges that A1, along with

about 30 others, trespassed into the subject property belonging to the

Page 4 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

second respondent, damaged the shed situated therein and removed the

articles kept in the said premises.

5.The second respondent initially approached the Inspector of

Police, Land Grabbing-II, CCB-II, Vepery, Chennai and after enquiry, a

report dated 13.04.2021 was issued directing the second respondent to

seek appropriate remedy before the revenue authorities. Aggrieved by the

said report, the second respondent filed W.P.No.11751 of 2021 seeking

transfer of the investigation. This Court, by order dated 28.02.2022,

transferred the complaint to the first respondent police, directed

registration of an FIR and further directed the police to complete the

investigation within a period of nine months. Accordingly, Crime No.2 of

2022 dated 25.04.2022 was registered against the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 448, 427, 379, 465, 467, 468

and 471 of the IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the first

respondent filed the final report, which was taken cognizance by the

learned Trial Court in C.C.No.123 of 2026 for the offences punishable

under Sections 120B, 420, 448, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, who are arrayed as A3 to A6,

have filed the present petitions seeking to quash the proceedings.

Page 5 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A3

in Crl.O.P.No.15044 of 2026 submitted that the period during which the

alleged offences were committed is stated to be from 18.10.2020 to

05.02.2021. During the said period, no documents were scanned using the

login ID of A3. It is contended that A2 had unauthorisedly used the login

credentials of A3, with a mala fide intention and for an ulterior motive,

committed the alleged acts without the knowledge or consent of A3. A3

was not even aware of the alleged misuse of his login credentials for

scanning the documents. The process relating to correction of the index

is initiated by submitting a written application along with the original

documents before the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, it was scrutinised and the

genuineness of the documents is verified with reference to the original

books and registers maintained in the Sub-Registrar Office. Upon such

verification, if the original documents produced by the applicant are

found to tally with the original records maintained in the registers, but

there is a discrepancy in the Encumbrance Certificate, then the Sub-

Registrar forwards the application along with his report to the District

Registrar for obtaining final approval. Upon such approval, the necessary

correction is carried out in the Encumbrance Certificate. Therefore, he

submitted that the mere use of the login credentials of A3, without his

Page 6 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

knowledge cannot by itself establish his involvement in the alleged

offences.

6.1.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Sub-

Registrar is arrayed as A5. However, the application in question was

received and acknowledged by A2, whereas the final approval was

granted by A6, who was the District Registrar. Accordingly, three index

correction petitions were approved on 20.08.2020, 31.03.2021 and

23.04.2021. Therefore, A3 to A5 neither received the applications nor

carried out any correction in the relevant records. It is further submitted

that the second respondent had initially lodged the complaint alleging

trespass and damage to the property by A1 and his associates. However,

the other accused have subsequently been falsely implicated in the case

without any material to establish their involvement in the alleged

fabrication or correction of records. He further submitted that, on a

perusal of the CCTV footage available at the Sub-Registrar Office, it is

evident that A3 to A5 were not present in the office at the relevant point

of time. Thus, there is no material to establish their participation or

conscious involvement in the alleged acts.

Page 7 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

6.2.He further submitted that the login credentials of the accused

were accessed from an IP address located at Tambaram and the Chennai

Joint South Integrated Office, and the same was also corroborated by one

of the witnesses. It is contended that A2 had received the application

seeking correction and had misused the login credentials of the staff. She

had also impersonated the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram, and affixed the

signature of the Sub-Registrar on the index correction petition and

thereafter forwarded the same for approval before the District Registrar,

who is arrayed as A6. One of the witnesses has also spoken about the

alleged acts committed by A2. It is further submitted that A1 and A7, who

was the Village Administrative Officer, had allegedly conspired together

and created a bogus sale deed. On the strength of the said document, the

title was subsequently transferred in favour of A1 and patta was also

obtained in the year 2020. Thereafter, upon the alleged transfer of title,

A1 approached A2 for carrying out correction in the Encumbrance

Certificate. Therefore, it is submitted that there are no specific allegations

or materials against A3 to A5 to establish their conscious participation,

hence the offences alleged against them are not made out.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2026 submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as A6

Page 8 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

and worked as District Registrar during the relevant period and had no

role in the alleged offence. He was only the approving authority and,

upon receipt of the recommendation from the concerned Sub-Registrar,

was required to consider and endorse the same in accordance with the

prescribed procedure. It is further submitted that the petitioner served as

the District Registrar in the Chennai South Registration District from

01.08.2018 to 31.08.2021. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy

Inspector General of Registration and served as Deputy Inspector General

of Registration at Madurai from 25.09.2023 and was subsequently

transferred to Salem. During his tenure as District Registrar, the petitioner

approved as many as 13,647 corrections submitted by 17 Sub-Registrars,

which included the correction relating to Document No.3994 of 1975.

Therefore, the mere approval of the correction in the course of his official

duties cannot by itself, establish his participation in the alleged

conspiracy or fabrication of documents. It is submitted that A6 neither

colluded with the other accused persons nor acted with any mala fide

intention in approving the correction in question.

7.1.The learned counsel further submitted that there is absolutely

no independent material on record to establish the active participation,

criminal intent or mens rea of A6 in the creation of the alleged forged

Page 9 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

document, manipulation of the volume registers, uploading process,

alteration of entries, or subsequent use of the alleged forged document as

genuine. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish

any motive, pecuniary benefit or wrongful gain attributable to A6. The

mere fact that A6, in his capacity as District Registrar, approved the

correction pursuant to the recommendation made by the concerned Sub-

Registrar, without any material demonstrating his conscious involvement

in the alleged fraudulent acts, would not be sufficient to fasten criminal

liability upon him. Hence, he prayed to allow the quash petition.

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials placed before this Court.

9.On perusal of the records and upon considering the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this

Court finds that there are prima facie materials indicating that the accused

persons had acted in concert and, in furtherance of their alleged

conspiracy, inserted a forged Sale Deed bearing Document No.3994 of

1975 dated 20.10.1975 by incorporating the number of a mortgage deed

into the relevant volume book. They also made corrections in the index

registers and that the said document was uploaded on 01.09.2020,

Page 10 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

18.09.2020, 09.11.2020, 18.11.2020, 21.11.2020, 15.04.2021, 01.07.2021,

05.07.2021 and 09.07.2021 with the intention of creating an encumbrance

over the subject property in favour of A1. The materials collected during

investigation further indicate that the accused persons had coordinated

with each other in the process, including the use of login credentials,

repeated uploading of the alleged document and obtaining approval from

the higher authorities. Therefore, at this stage, the role attributed to each

of the petitioners cannot be viewed in isolation, as the allegations indicate

that their respective acts formed part of the larger alleged conspiracy. The

repeated use of the login credentials of the concerned officials, coupled

with the other materials collected during investigation, cannot be brushed

aside at this stage, as mere unauthorised misuse of their credentials.

10.The question as to whether the petitioners had knowledge of

the alleged forgery, whether they consciously participated in the alleged

conspiracy and whether they possessed the requisite mens rea are all

matters which require appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence.

Such disputed questions cannot be conclusively adjudicated in a petition

filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Once a prima facie case of conspiracy

is disclosed, the individual acts allegedly committed by the conspirators

in furtherance of the common design require consideration along with the

Page 11 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

entire chain of circumstances. Therefore, the grounds raised by the

petitioners, regarding lack of knowledge, misuse of login credentials,

absence of physical presence and mala fide intention, have to be

established before the Trial Court by adducing appropriate evidence.

11.That apart, the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467,

468 and 471 of the IPC do not necessarily require proof of any monetary

benefit having been derived by the accused. The commission of the acts

constituting forgery and the making or use of a forged document, coupled

with the requisite knowledge and intention, are sufficient to attract the

respective penal provisions. In the present case, the materials collected

during investigation prima facie indicate that the alleged acts were

committed in furtherance of the wrongful gain sought to be secured by

A1 and the corresponding wrongful loss caused to the second respondent.

Therefore, at this stage, there are sufficient materials to disclose the

commission of the alleged offences relating to cheating, forgery and

fabrication of documents. The repeated use of the login credentials of the

concerned accused and the forwarding of documents through their

respective user IDs for approval cannot be considered in isolation. The

prosecution does not rely solely upon the login records to establish the

involvement of the petitioners.

Page 12 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

12.The electronic records have to be considered along with the

surrounding circumstances, including the conduct of the accused, the

official processing of the documents, the correction proposals, the

statements of the witnesses and the subsequent use of the alleged forged

documents. The investigation also reveals that several corrections were

carried out in the registration records relating to the title, survey numbers

and extent of the subject property. These corrections have been made in

connection with the forged sale deed and thereafter used to create a false

claim over the property belonging to the second respondent. Thus, the

electronic records, when considered cumulatively with the other materials

collected during investigation, disclose prima facie circumstances

connecting the accused with the alleged acts. Whether the said materials

are sufficient to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt is a

matter for consideration by the Trial Court after completion of the trial

and cannot be determined at this stage.

13.Further, the materials collected during investigation indicate

that the accused persons had allegedly played different roles at different

stages in the process of introducing, uploading, correcting and approving

Page 13 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

the fabricated document. Therefore, the case of the prosecution, at this

stage, cannot be viewed as one in which the acts attributed to one accused

necessarily exclude the participation of the others. Rather, the allegations

disclose a concerted and coordinated course of conduct involving a series

of connected acts. A criminal conspiracy may be established from the

cumulative effect of the conduct of the accused persons and the

surrounding circumstances. Whether the said circumstances ultimately

establish the charge of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt is a matter for

determination by the Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence. At

this stage, the materials available on record cannot said to be wholly

insufficient to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged offence of

conspiracy.

14.Insofar as A6 is concerned, the materials collected during

investigation indicate that, despite being the final approving authority in

his capacity as District Registrar, he repeatedly approved the index

corrections relating to the very same document on three occasions,

namely, 20.08.2020, 31.03.2021 and 23.04.2021. These approvals

facilitated the incorporation and continuation of the alleged forged entries

and thereby enabled the creation of a false claim in favour of A1. The A6

being a District Registrar and the final approving authority, was expected

Page 14 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

to exercise due scrutiny while approving corrections relating to material

particulars such as title, ownership, survey number and extent of the

property. The mere assertion that A6 acted only in his official capacity

cannot by itself absolve him of the allegations made against him,

particularly when the prosecution has placed materials indicating

repeated approvals in respect of the same document. Equally, the question

whether any statutory or official protection is available to A6 would

depend upon the nature of the acts alleged and the evidence ultimately

adduced before the Trial Court. Therefore, the grounds raised by the

petitioners involves disputed questions of fact and cannot be conclusively

adjudicated. Hence, the entire proceedings cannot be quashed at this

stage.

15.In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,

(Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351,

while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings

held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement

of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in

their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as

against the accused. It could be done only by the Trial Court while

Page 15 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

deciding the issues on the merits or by the Appellate Court while deciding

the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid

on the basis of the inconsistency statement under 180 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

16.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of

2019 dated 17.10.2019) reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686, held that the

High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence

of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial

Court during the trial. Therefore, this Court cannot consider the disputed

facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

17.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment

dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of

M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the

petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not

embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All

that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the

complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain

offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the

Page 16 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or

not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if

accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged. Whether

the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to

law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.

18.Further this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether

the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is

required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the

grounds raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet

cannot be entertained and this Court is not inclined to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2026 on the file of the learned XI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

19.Accordingly, all the Criminal Original Petitions stand

dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also

closed.

25.09.2026

Index : Yes/No

Neutral citation: Yes/No

Speaking/non-speaking order

rts

Page 17 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9756 of 2025 etc.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

rts

To

1. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate,

Saidapet, Chennai

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Metro II Crime Branch CID,

Egmore, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor,

Madras High Court,

Chennai.

Common Order in

Crl.O.P.Nos.9756, 12717, 12724 & 15044 of 2026

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6942, 8626, 8635, 9659 & 9661 of 2025

25.09.2026

Page 18 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis