M. Gnanasekaran v. The State Rep by Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner has preferred the above revision challenging the Judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in Crl.A.No.13 of 2022 dated 27.11.2025, confirming the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu, in C.C.No.245 of 2017 dated

29.04.2022 convicting the petitioner/A1 for the offences under Sections 419, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and sentenced as follows: Offence under Section Sentence imposed Section 419 of the IPC To undergo imprisonment for two years Section 465 of the IPC To undergo imprisonment for two years Section 468 of the IPC To undergo imprisonment for two years To pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. in Page3 of 7

¶2Aggrieved by the same, he filed Crl.RC.No. of 2026 before this Court along with the instant criminal miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶3It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/A1 is a land broker; that the second accused, claiming himself to be Mr. S. Nagarajan, who owned properties along with the de-facto complainant, had impersonated and executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner/A1, who, on the basis of the said power of attorney, had caused damages to an iron fence and a hut located on the property and thus committed the aforesaid offenses.

¶4Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1, would submit that the Judgment of the Courts below are liable to be set aside; that the alleged impersonator who was shown as A2 had entered into a compromise with the de-facto complainant and the proceedings against him were quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22054 of 2019 dated 16.08.2019; that since the petitioner/A1 is only an agent, there is no allegation that he had induced the second accused to impersonate as the Mr.S.Nagarajan, who is said to be the owner of the property; and that the impugned Judgments are liable to be set aside, and he prayed for acquittal. in Page4 of 7

¶5Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Admittedly, the petitioner is only a power agent. He had not executed any document pursuant to the power of attorney executed in his favour. It is also seen that the alleged impersonator, who was arrayed as A2, has entered into the compromise with the de-facto complainant. Hence, there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has made a prima facie case for suspension of sentence, and since the revision is not likely to be taken up in the near future, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of suspension of sentence to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed, and the sentence imposed on the petitioner is suspended till the disposal of the above criminal revision case, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:

(i)The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu; in Page5 of 7

(ii)The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity; and

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the revision and if he is not able to appear before the Trial Court on any day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence, as directed by the Trial Court. 05-02-2026 (1/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dk in Page6 of 7 To

¶1The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu.

¶3The Inspector of Police E-8, Kelambakkam Police Station,

Crl.M.P.No.415oofo2026 in Crl.R.C.No.54oofo2026 SUNDERoMOHANoJ. dk CRLoMPoNo.415oOFo2026 ino CRLoRCoNo.o54oofo2026 05-02-2026 Page7oofo7

in Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL MP No.415 of 2026 in Mr.M.Gnanasekaran S/o.P.C.Murugaiyan, MIG-2, No.30, 4th Main Road, Kottur Garden, Kottur, Chennai – 600 085. ..Petitioner/A1 Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police E-8, Kelambakkam Police Station, Crime No.578/2015. ...Respondent/Complainant Prayer : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 438(1) of BNSS, 2023, to suspend sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl.A.No.13 of 2022 dated 27.11.2025 and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu in CC.No.245 of 2017 dated 29.04.2022 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of Crl.R.C.No.54 of 2026. in Page2 of 7 For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)