Rayar v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.03 of 2025, which is registered for the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶2Upon perusal of the FIR, it is stated that the defacto complainant is the owner of the property, having purchased the same from one Natarajan vide sale deed bearing Document No.52 of 2003. It is his further allegation that all the accused have conspired together and created false documents, and his property has been dealt with under two documents bearing Document Nos.2065 of 2022 and 2047 of 2022.

¶3It is further alleged that even false revenue documents have been created, and as such, the case has been registered against a total of 11 accused. The petitioners herein are A6 to A11.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation is that the first petitioner/Rayar is said to have executed the deed in favour of his daughter by including the share of the defacto complainant also. Page3 of 6

¶5However, subsequently, a rectification deed was executed to exclude the said extent. The petitioners have not committed any error whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the shares in respect of the properties in question are yet to be determined, and the matter is also pending before the Civil Court.

¶6Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the allegations are regarding the creation of false documents and dealing with the property belonging to the defacto complainant. Hence, the case has been registered, and the matter is under investigation.

¶7I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶8Even though the rectification deed is said to have been executed in respect of one document dated 04.05.2022, the allegation is made against two documents. Further, allegations are also made against the official respondents, etc., regarding their alleged role in aiding the other accused in creating false documents. Therefore, this is not a case where this Court should interfere at the stage of investigation. Page4 of 6

¶9Prima facie, the investigation has to proceed. It will be open to the petitioners to place before the Investigating Authority, if they so choose to, any or all documents in their favour, including the rectification deed. It is for the Investigating Authority to dispassionately consider all the documents, including the plaint filed in the civil suit, etc., before proceeding to file the final report.

¶10Considering the fact that the FIR is pending from the year 2025, the respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order.

¶11This Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. 10-07-2026 jas Page5 of 6 To

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Ariyalur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o18031oofo2026 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. jas CRLoOPoNo.o18031oofo2026 10-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 1.Rayar 2.Tamilarasi 3.Vijaya 4.Appil 5.Latha alias Lalitha 6.Kokila ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Ariyalur District. Crime No.03/2025. 2. Arjunan ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to Crime No.03 of 2025 on the file of Respondent/Complainant and quash the same as against the petitioner/Accused A6 to A11 herein. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Vishnu For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 Page2 of 6