Chellasamy vs S.Muthupandian
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on: 27.10.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 2437 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010080332026}
Chellasamy
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
S.Muthupandian
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to set aside the judgment dated 02.12.2025 passed by the
learned District Judge, Tenkasi, in Crl.A.No.52 of 2025, arising out of the
order passed in M.J.C.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.20 of 2025.
For Petitioner(s) : M/s V.V.Giridhar
For Respondent(s) :M/s.S.Radhakrishnan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is directed against the judgment
dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tenkasi,
in Crl.A.No.52 of 2025, whereby the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by
the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankarankoil, in M.J.C.No.1 of 2025,
came to be set aside.
__________
Page 1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
Factual Matrix:-
2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2025 on
the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankoil, which has been laid for the relief
of declaration and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner herein is
arrayed as the first defendant in the said suit. Along with the plaint, the
respondent/plaintiff has filed photocopies of the following two
unregistered documents:-
(a) Plaint Document No.2, a sale deed dated 06.11.1993, said to
have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent's father,
one Samuthiravel; and
(b) Plaint Document No.3, a settlement deed dated 15.04.2013, said
to have been executed by the said Samuthiravel in favour of his son, the
respondent herein.
3. Contending that both the above documents are forged and
fabricated, the petitioner/first defendant filed a petition under Section 379
__________
Page 2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
read with Section 215(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), which was taken on file as
M.J.C.No.1 of 2025.
4. Without any oral or documentary evidence being let in by either
side, the learned Subordinate Judge, by order dated 28.07.2025, held as
follows:-
(a) that there was no prima facie material to hold that Plaint
Document No.2, namely, the sale deed dated 06.11.1993, was fabricated;
and
(b) that a prima facie case of fabrication was made out in respect of
Plaint Document No.3. The sole reason assigned by the trial Court was
that Tenkasi District came to be formed only on 12.11.2019, whereas the
stamp vendor’s seal and the address of the parties found in the said
document, which is of the year 2013, refer to “Tenkasi District”.
__________
Page 3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
5. On the very same day, the trial Court also allowed I.A.No.8 of
2025 filed by the defendant, seeking a direction to the plaintiff to produce
the original documents. The finding rendered in respect of Plaint
Document No.2 was not challenged by the petitioner and the same has,
therefore, attained finality.
6. Aggrieved by the said order insofar as it related to Plaint
Document No.3, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal in
Crl.A.No.52 of 2025 before the learned Principal District Judge, Tenkasi.
The learned Principal District Judge allowed the appeal, recording the
following findings:-
(a) that where the fabrication is alleged to have taken place outside
the Court, the Court, before making a complaint, ought to conduct a
preliminary enquiry and must be satisfied that the document is forged.
The Court must further arrive at a finding that the respondent was a party
to the fabrication or had knowingly used the forged document, and that he
had acted with the requisite mens rea ; and
__________
Page 4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
(b) that the Sub Court had acted on a mere presumption, at a
premature stage, even before the originals were produced or the
documents were marked in evidence.
7. The appellate Court further observed that it was open to the
petitioner to lodge a private complaint, and that the trial Court may take
action under Section 379 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 340 of
Cr.P.C.), if necessary, after adjudicating upon the genuineness of the
documents. Challenging the said judgment of the appellate Court, the
defendant/complainant has come before this Court.
Submissions of the learned Counsel on either side:-
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit has
been laid on the strength of forged, unregistered and unstamped
documents, and that the petitioner raised the plea of forgery at the very
first opportunity. The Sub Court, after hearing both sides, recorded its
prima facie satisfaction. According to the learned Counsel, the trial Court
was entitled to act as soon as the false document was brought to its
notice, and was not required to await the conclusion of the trial.
__________
Page 5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
9. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance upon the following decisions:-
(a) P.S.Kirubakaran and another Vs. Azizul Karim, reported in
2021 (3) CTC 409 ;
(b) Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and
another, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 ;
(c) T.Dhinakaran (Minor), rep. by his next friend and grandmother,
Vijaya and another Vs. V.Ranganathan, reported in 2017 (8) MLJ 606 ;
and
(d) Arockiasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2024 (3)
MWN (Cr.) 158 (SC) .
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
the plea regarding the illiteracy of the respondent’s father was raised for
the first time only in the appeal and is nothing but an afterthought.
Despite the order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2025, the respondent has not
produced the original documents. It was further contended that the
__________
Page 6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
appellate Court erred in relegating the petitioner to the remedy of a
private complaint.
11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted
that, in terms of Section 380(2) of BNSS, the judgment rendered in
appeal is final and is not amenable to revision. Hence, the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to circumvent the said
statutory bar.
12. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that
the suit for declaration is founded on long possession and that the
illiteracy of the respondent’s father has been specifically pleaded in the
plaint itself. Only photocopies of the documents were filed before the Sub
Court, and till date, no issues have been framed and no evidence has been
recorded. The very basis of the finding of the Sub Court is factually
incorrect. The replies obtained under the Right to Information Act from
the competent authority, namely, the Registration Department, clearly
reveal that the Tenkasi Sub Registration District has been in existence as
__________
Page 7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
early as in the year 1973, and that the stamp papers in question were
purchased by the respondent’s father, Samuthiravel, on 13.04.2013, from
a stamp vendor whose seal reads “Tenkasi District”. Placing reliance
upon the decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah ’s case, the learned Counsel
submitted that where no tampering is alleged to have taken place while
the document was in the custody of the Court, the initiation of
proceedings under Section 379 of BNSS is unsustainable in law.
13. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
14. Section 379 of BNSS empowers a Court to make a complaint
where it is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that
an enquiry should be made into an offence referred to in Section 215(1)
(b) of BNSS, which appears to have been committed. Such an opinion
must rest on material, and the power cannot be exercised on mere
suspicion or on doubtful inferences. A prosecution for false evidence
ought to be directed only where the falsehood appears to be deliberate
__________
Page 8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
and conscious, and there exists a reasonable foundation for framing the
charge.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey
Shyam , reported in (1971) 1 SCC 774 , at paragraph 7, has held as
follows:-
“ 7.The prosecution for perjury should be
sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the
perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and
the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No
doubt giving of false evidence and filing false
affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed
with a strong hand but to start prosecution for
perjury too readily and too frequently without due
care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful
material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should
be ordered when it is considered expedient in the
interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not
merely because there is some inaccuracy in the
statement which may be innocent or immaterial.
There must be prima facie case of deliberate
falsehood on a matter of substance and the court
should be satisfied that there is reasonable
foundation for the charge.”
16. It is thus clear from the above decision that a prosecution can
be ordered only when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice,
__________
Page 9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
and not merely because there is some inaccuracy or contradiction in a
statement. A prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of
substance must be made out, and the Court must be satisfied that there is
a reasonable foundation for the charge.
17. The question that therefore arises for consideration is whether,
in the case on hand, a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood, furnishing
a reasonable foundation for the charge, has been made out.
18. A perusal of Plaint Document No.3, which forms part of the
typed set of papers, shows that it is an unregistered settlement deed dated
15.04.2013, executed by one Samuthiravel in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. The stamp papers bearing No.76AA 589345 were
purchased on 13.04.2013 from a stamp vendor, one Guruvammal of
Karivalamvandanallur, Tenkasi District. The document bears only the
signature of Samuthiravel and not that of the respondent/plaintiff.
__________
Page 10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
19. The trial Court entertained suspicion over this document solely
on the ground that Tenkasi District was formed only in the year 2019, and
therefore, a document executed in the year 2013 could not have referred
to “Tenkasi District”. However, the respondent/plaintiff has obtained a
reply dated 19.09.2025 under the Right to Information Act from the
District Registrar, Tenkasi. The said reply of the competent authority
confirms that the stamp papers in question were sold by the concerned
stamp vendor on 13.04.2013 in favour of Samuthiravel, and a copy of the
relevant entry in the register maintained by the stamp vendor has also
been enclosed. Yet another reply furnished by the District Registrar,
Tenkasi, reveals that the Tenkasi Sub Registration District was created as
early as on 30.06.1973.
20. The stamp vendor’s seal on the disputed document refers to
“Tenkasi District”, and the schedule describes the property as situated
within the “Tenkasi Sub Registration District”. The only circumstance
relied upon to cast a cloud over the document is that the address of the
plaintiff and his father is also described as “Tenkasi District”. Apart from
__________
Page 11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
this, there is no other circumstance warranting any suspicion. On the
other hand, the stamp paper number, the name and seal of the stamp
vendor, the name of the person in whose favour the stamp papers were
sold and the date of sale have all been confirmed by the competent
authority. It is also relevant to note that the respondent is not a signatory
to the settlement deed, which has been signed only by his father, who is
no more. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that merely because the document refers to “Tenkasi District”, the entire
document cannot, at this stage, be branded as a forged one, particularly in
the light of the information furnished by the District Registrar, Tenkasi,
being the competent authority, which speaks to the genuineness of the
stamp papers.
21. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Iqbal
Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another ,
reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 , at paragraph 23, has held as follows:-
“ 23. In view of the language used in Section 340
CrPC., the court is not bound to make a complaint
regarding commission of an offence referred to in
Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the
__________
Page 12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the
interests of justice". This shows that such a course will
be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and
not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the
court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a
finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of
justice that enquiry should be made into any of the
offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This
expediency will normally be judged by the court by
weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the
person affected by such forgery or forged document, but
having regard to the effect or impact, such commission
of offence has upon administration of justice. It is
possible that such forged document or forgery may
cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in
the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable
property or status or the like, but such document may
be just a piece of evidence produced or given in
evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have
been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence
on the broad concept of administration of justice may
be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not
consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a
complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as
canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would
render the victim of such forgery or forged document
remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a
situation where a victim of a crime is rendered
remediless, has to be discarded.”
22. In Amarsang Nathaji Vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and
others , reported in (2017) 1 SCC 113 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at
paragraphs 5, 6 and 10, has held as follows:-
“5. There are two preconditions for initiating
proceedings under Section 340 CrPC:
(i) materials produced before the court must
make out a prima facie case for a complaint for the
purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in
__________
Page 13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 195
CrPC, and
(ii) it is expedient in the interests of justice
that an inquiry should be made into the alleged
offence.
6. The mere fact that a person has made a
contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is
not by itself always sufficient to justify a
prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the
Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred
to as "IPC"); but it must be shown that the
defendant has intentionally given a false statement
at any stage of the judicial proceedings or
fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using
the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings.
Even after the above position has emerged also,
still the court has to form an opinion that it is
expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an
inquiry into the offences of false evidence and
offences against public justice and more specifically
referred to in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard
to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable
consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S.
Mohd. v. Union of India). The court must be
satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the
interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of
the case.
10. No doubt, such an opinion can be formed
even without conducting a preliminary inquiry, if
the formation of opinion is otherwise possible. And
even after forming the opinion also, the court has to
take a decision as to whether it is required, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, to file the
complaint. Only if the decision is in the affirmative,
the court needs to make a complaint in writing and
the complaint thus made in writing is then to be sent
to a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.”
__________
Page 14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
23. A conjoint reading of the above decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court makes it clear that unless a prima facie case is made out,
furnishing a reasonable foundation for the charge, it would not be
expedient in the interests of justice to initiate proceedings under Section
379 of BNSS.
24. The appellate Court has also recorded a finding that, since the
alleged forgery is said to have taken place before the document was
produced before the Court, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C.
[now Section 215(1)(b)(ii) of BNSS] would not be attracted, and that the
genuineness of the document and the respondent’s connection with it
must first be determined. This Court does not find any illegality,
perversity or error in the said reasoning of the appellate Court.
25. Insofar as the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner are concerned, the decisions in P.S.Kirubakaran and
T.Dhinakaran recognise the power of the Court to initiate such
proceedings and lay down the procedure to be followed; however, neither
__________
Page 15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
of them dispenses with the requirement of material disclosing deliberate
falsehood. As regards Arockiasamy ’s case, the same arose out of the
registration of a separate FIR, wherein it was held that the bar under
Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would not operate where the alleged forgery was
not committed while the matter was sub judice . Hence, the said decisions
do not advance the case of the petitioner.
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the appellate Court has rightly set aside the order
passed by the Sub Court directing initiation of proceedings under Section
379 of BNSS.
27. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined
only to the question of making a complaint by the Court at this stage.
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the genuineness of the
documents dated 06.11.1993 and 15.04.2013, which shall be decided by
the trial Court in O.S.No.20 of 2025 on the basis of the evidence let in,
uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. It is always
__________
Page 16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
open to the trial Court, upon such determination, to proceed in
accordance with Section 379 of BNSS, if so warranted. It is equally open
to the petitioner to pursue such other remedies as may be available to him
in law.
Conclusion:-
28. Accordingly, the judgment dated 02.12.2025 passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Tenkasi, in Crl.A.No.52 of 2025, is
confirmed.
29. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
04.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RJR
__________
Page 17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
To
Learned Principal District Judge,
Tenkasi.
__________
Page 18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
Pre-delivery order made in
CRL OP(MD) No. 2437 of 2026
04.11.2026
__________
Page 19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:41:12 pm )