Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.150 of 2026

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.161 of 2026

M.Subramaniyan Chettiyar

... Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by the Station House Officer,

District Crime Branch,

Pudukottai District.

Crime No.24 of 2025.

.... Respondents / Complainants

2. K.C.Duraimurugan

..... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for records relating to the impugned FIR in

Crime No. 24/2025 on the file of the 1

st

respondent police station so

far as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

For Petitioners: Mr.Gandhi,

Senior counsel,

For Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan

For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi,

Additional Public Prosecutor

For R-2 : Mr.B.Pragalath Ravi,

For Mr.S.Alagusundar

ORDER

Prologue:

The present Criminal Original Petition raises a delicate yet

profound question touching upon the sanctity of judicial proceedings

and the permissible limits of criminal prosecution when the very

document alleged to be forged had already travelled through the

corridors of judicial adjudication and attained a measure of judicial

consideration before a Constitutional Court.

2. The case at hand is not a simple prosecution resting upon

an isolated allegation of fabrication. Rather, it emanates from a long-

standing and embittered dispute concerning endowed temple

properties, hereditary claims, trusteeship assertions, revenue

proceedings, civil litigation, and competing assertions regarding the

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

administration of “Sirukala Santhi Kattalai” attached to Arulmigu

Athmanathaswamy Temple, Avudayarkovil.

3. The petitioner seeks quashment of the FIR in Crime No.24 of

2025 and the consequential final report in C.C.No.35 of 2026,

principally contending that the prosecution itself is legally barred

under Section 215(1)(b)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 195 Cr.P.C., since the

disputed document was produced before this Court in judicial

proceedings.

4. The respondents, on the other hand, would vehemently

contend that the petitioner fabricated a forged letter in the name of

the deceased father of the second respondent and utilised the same

for securing favourable judicial findings, thereby committing serious

offences affecting the purity of administration of justice itself.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The prosecution case, as discernible from the FIR and the

materials placed before this Court, is that the father of the second

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

respondent had allegedly issued a lease-related letter dated

20.06.2012 concerning the subject property. According to the second

respondent, the said letter was later produced by the petitioner

before this Court in C.R.P.(MD) No.1520 of 2022 arising out of

proceedings connected with Trust O.P.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the

Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

6. It is alleged that the said document is forged and fabricated.

The further case of the prosecution is that the father of the second

respondent, namely Chidambaram, died on 20.07.2022 and

therefore could not dispute the genuineness of the document after

the Civil Revision Petition was numbered and entertained. The

second respondent would state that only after dismissal of the Civil

Revision Petition and upon comparison of signatures available in

other documents, he discovered that the disputed letter was forged.

7. Since the respondent police did not initially register a case,

the second respondent approached this Court in W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.

928 of 2025 and pursuant to directions issued therein, the

impugned FIR in Crime No.24 of 2025 came to be registered for

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC corresponding to

Sections 336(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023. During the pendency of the present petition,

investigation was completed and final report came to be filed in

C.C.No.35 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Pudukkottai.

8. The petitioner would contend that his ancestors had

purchased several properties during the Pudukkottai Kingdom period

exclusively for the benefit of the deity of Arulmigu

Athmanathaswamy Temple and for performance of “Sirukala Santhi

Kattalai”. According to the petitioner, the endowed properties had

been continuously administered through hereditary arrangements

and annadhanam obligations.

9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the second

respondent’s father, who was only a cultivating tenant, attempted to

project himself as hereditary trustee and alienated portions of temple

properties illegally. The petitioner would further contend that

revenue proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer,

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

Aranthangi, culminated in restoration of patta in the name of

“Sirukala Santhi Kattalai”.

10. Thereafter, the second respondent’s father filed Trust

O.P.No.47 of 2017 before the learned Principal District Court,

Pudukkottai, seeking permission to alienate portions of the endowed

property. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings before this

Court in C.R.P.(MD) No.1520 of 2022.

11. In the said proceedings, the petitioner relied upon several

historical documents including the disputed lease request letter

dated 20.06.2012 allegedly written by the second respondent’s

father. This Court, in the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the order

passed in the Trust O.P. and made serious observations regarding

the conduct of the second respondent’s father and the absence of

foundational materials proving trusteeship.

12. The review petition subsequently filed by the second

respondent was also dismissed. According to the petitioner, once the

allegation regarding the disputed document had already surfaced

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

before this Court and the judicial proceedings had attained finality,

initiation of criminal prosecution before the police is legally

impermissible.

13. The principal grounds raised by the petitioner are as

follows:

(i) The disputed document had been produced before this

Court in judicial proceedings and therefore prosecution is barred

under Section 215(1)(b)(ii) BNSS corresponding to Section 195

Cr.P.C.;

(ii) The allegation of forgery had already been raised in the

review proceedings and stood rejected;

(iii) The dispute is essentially civil in nature concerning title,

trusteeship and endowment administration;

(iv) The criminal prosecution is a retaliatory counterblast to

adverse civil orders;

(v) The FIR lacks ingredients of forgery and fabrication;

and

(vi) Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to

abuse of process of Court.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

14. The second respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit

resisting the petition. According to the second respondent, the

petitioner deliberately fabricated the disputed letter in the name of

his deceased father and utilised the same before this Court in order

to secure favourable findings in the Civil Revision Petition.

15. It is further contended that the father of the second

respondent was not alive when the Civil Revision Petition was taken

up and therefore he could not effectively dispute the forged

document. The second respondent would further submit that the

handwriting expert has already opined that the disputed document is

forged and therefore the matter requires full-fledged trial.

16. It is also contended that the police have already completed

investigation and filed final report in C.C.No.35 of 2026 and therefore

the present petition has become infructuous insofar as FIR

quashment is concerned. The learned counsel appearing for the

second respondent would strongly argue that fabrication of a

document and production of the same before Court constitute grave

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

offences affecting purity of justice delivery system and such offences

cannot be shielded under the guise of technical bars.

Arguments on either side:

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

entire prosecution is fundamentally barred by law. He would submit

that the disputed document formed part of judicial proceedings

before this Court and therefore cognizance could be taken only upon

a complaint by the Court concerned in terms of Section 215(1)(b)(ii)

BNSS.

18. The learned counsel would further contend that permitting

a police investigation on the basis of a private complaint would

completely defeat the legislative intent underlying Section 195

Cr.P.C. and its corresponding provision under the BNSS. The learned

counsel further submitted that the review petition itself contained

allegations regarding forgery and this Court nevertheless dismissed

the review petition and relegated the parties to civil remedies. He

would therefore contend that the present prosecution amounts to

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

collateral attack upon judicial proceedings already concluded before

this Court.

19. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that the allegations disclose cognizable offences involving

fabrication and use of forged documents. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor would contend that once investigation culminated

in filing of final report supported by expert opinion, the matter ought

to be tested only during trial.

20. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted

that Section 215 (1)(b)(ii)BNSS cannot become a protective umbrella

for a person who fabricated a document and polluted judicial

proceedings. According to him, the bar under Section 215(1)(b)(ii)

BNSS would not apply when the forgery itself was committed prior to

production before Court.

21. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

Points for consideration:

22. In light of the rival submissions, the following points arise

for consideration:

(i) Whether the impugned prosecution is barred under Section

215(1)(b)(ii)BNSS corresponding to Section 195 Cr.P.C.?

(ii) Whether continuation of criminal proceedings would

amount to abuse of process of law?

(iii) Whether the allegations disclose matters requiring trial

notwithstanding the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS?

Analysis:

23. Section 215(1)(b)(ii) BNSS substantially corresponds to

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The object behind the provision is not

merely procedural. It is institutional. The Legislature consciously

insulated judicial proceedings from collateral criminal prosecutions

initiated at the instance of private parties in relation to documents

produced before Courts.

24. The rationale is simple yet profound. When a document

enters judicial custody and becomes part of judicial adjudication, the

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

Court itself becomes the guardian of the sanctity of such

proceedings. The law therefore mandates that prosecution

concerning fabrication or forgery of such documents should

ordinarily emanate from the concerned Court and not from private

vengeance.

25. The materials placed before this Court unmistakably reveal

that the disputed letter dated 20.06.2012 was indeed produced

before this Court in C.R.P.(MD) No.1520 of 2022. Equally significant

is the fact that allegations regarding the genuineness of the said

document surfaced during subsequent review proceedings.

26. Even thereafter, no complaint appears to have been

initiated by the Court concerned. Instead, the second respondent

independently set criminal law into motion through police

machinery. Such course prima facie strikes at the statutory embargo

contemplated under Section 215 BNSS.

27. The order passed in C.R.P.(MD) No.1520 of 2022 contains

elaborate observations concerning the conduct of the second

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

respondent’s father and the deficiencies in establishing hereditary

trusteeship. This Court had also observed that the Trust O.P. itself

suffered from serious infirmities.

28. Though the respondents would contend that the issue of

forgery was not conclusively adjudicated, the undeniable fact

remains that the disputed document formed part of judicial scrutiny.

The respondents cannot now indirectly reopen the very same

controversy through police prosecution without following the

statutory safeguards mandated under Section 215 BNSS.

29. Mere existence of civil proceedings does not by itself

extinguish criminal liability. Equally, criminal law cannot be

permitted to become a weapon of strategic retaliation arising out of

failed civil claims. The present dispute fundamentally revolves

around endowed properties, trusteeship claims, patta disputes,

cultivation rights and rival assertions concerning hereditary

administration.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

30. The criminal allegations are inextricably intertwined with

those civil disputes. More importantly, the alleged forged document

did not independently create title nor directly transfer proprietary

rights. The prosecution has also not demonstrated any direct

pecuniary gain accrued to the petitioner solely by virtue of the

disputed document.

31. True it is that final report has already been filed in C.C.No.

35 of 2026. However, mere filing of final report cannot sanctify

proceedings initiated contrary to statutory mandate. If the

foundational initiation itself suffers from legal embargo, subsequent

proceedings built upon such foundation cannot survive

independently. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section

528 BNSS exists precisely to prevent such abuse of process.

32. Criminal law is a solemn instrument of justice. It cannot be

transformed into an extension of civil warfare. Courts must remain

vigilant whenever criminal prosecution emerges immediately after

failure in civil litigation, particularly where the disputed material had

already travelled through judicial proceedings.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

33. The facts of the present case unmistakably reveal that the

criminal prosecution arose only after adverse orders in the Civil

Revision proceedings and dismissal of the review petition. The

sequence of events lends substantial credence to the petitioner’s

contention that the prosecution is retaliatory in character.

Epilogue:

34. Judicial proceedings cannot be permitted to become

battlegrounds for endless retaliatory litigations. Equally, allegations

of fabrication of documents used before Constitutional Courts are

undoubtedly serious. Yet, seriousness of allegation cannot override

statutory safeguards consciously enacted by the Legislature.

35. Section 215 BNSS is not a mere technical obstacle. It is a

jurisdictional mandate intended to preserve judicial discipline and

institutional propriety. When law requires that prosecution

concerning documents produced before Court should emanate from

the Court itself, private parties cannot circumvent the legislative

command through police machinery.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

36. This Court is therefore of the considered view that

continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to

abuse of process of law warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction

under Section 528 BNSS.

37. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands

allowed. The FIR in Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of the first

respondent police and the consequential final report in C.C.No.35 of

2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Pudukkottai, are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

38. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude

the competent Court, if otherwise deemed necessary in accordance

with law, from initiating appropriate proceedings under the relevant

provisions governing offences affecting administration of justice,

strictly in the manner known to law.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Pudukkottai.

2 The Station House Officer,

District Crime Branch,

Pudukottai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.150 of 2026

01.06.2026

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