A.Esakkiammal v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The Revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing to register the complaint lodged by the petitioner alleging forgery in a partnership reconstitution deed. According to the petitioner, the signature of the petitioner's husband was forged in Form-5, which was filed online in the website of the Registrar of Forms.

2.The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petitioner on the ground that the allegation predominantly discloses a civil dispute between partners.

3.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 submitted that the respondents are not relying upon the reconstitution deed, which is said to have been filed in the year 2023 and that therefore, no wrongful loss has been caused to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the seventh respondent, who was the Registrar of Firms, submitted that the seventh respondent had nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioner and the other respondents and that she has been falsely accused of the offence without any basis. Page4 of 6

5.In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not pressing the instant petition.

6.Hence, the Revision is disposed of, by recording the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 that they would not rely upon the reconstitution deed, which is covered in Form 5 filed before the Registrar of Firms on 28.01.2023. It is needless to say that the seventh respondent may not be guilty of the offences, even if the allegations are accepted to be true. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court or the submissions made by the parties, would not affect their respective rights before the Arbitrator, except to the extent stated above. 19-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order TSG Page5 of 6 To

1.The Metropolitan Magistrate, for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai and CBCID, Metro Cases Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police Forged Document Investigation Branch, Beeta-10, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. Crime No. 203/2023. CRLoRCoNo.o2820oofo2025 SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. TSG CRLoRCoNo.o2820oofo2025 19-02-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN A.Esakkiammal W/o.S.R.Mohan, No. 3/7, Reddy Street, West Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Forged Document Investigation Branch, Beeta-10, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. Crime No. 203/2023. 2. P.Gunasekaran Partner M/s Mars Mines 3. N.Selavarajan Partner M/s Mars Mines 4. K.Balamurugan Partner M/s Mars Mines 5. P.R.Gokulakrishnan Partner M/s Mars Mines 6. Mahesh Kumar Partner M/s Mars Mines Page2 of 6 The respondents 2 to 6 as partners of M/s Mars Mines carrying business at No.5/17 Velachery Road, Little Mount Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 7. Sathiyapriya presently working as Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu Registration Department, Trichy. (R2 to R7 are impleaded as per the order of this court dated 18.02.2026 in Crl.MP.No.372 of 2026 and Crl.RC.No.2820 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order dt. 22.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 3693/2025 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai and CBCID, Metro Cases Egmore, Chennai and thereby permit the petitioner to proceed with the prosecution as private complaint U/s. 223 BNSS in the interest of justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Balachanderan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Dr.A.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel For M/s.Aishwarya Sakunthala for RR2 to 6 Mr.T.M.Pappaiah for R7 Page3 of 6