Manikandan vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Mamsapuram
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 27.10.2026
Pronounced on : 12.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No.3387 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010228292026}
and
CRL MP(MD) No.3607 of 2026
Manikandan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Inspector Of Police,
Mamsapuram Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
Crime No.348/2023.
2. Sivasankaran Pillai
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in C.C.No.1023 of 2025, on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputtur, and quash the
same.
For Petitioner(s) : M/s.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent(s) :M/s.V.Sathurthi Raja
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for
R1
M/s.V.R.Shanmuganathan
for R2
__________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
ORDER
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the
petitioner, who is arrayed as A4 in C.C.No.1023 of 2025 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputtur, seeking to quash
the said proceedings, wherein he stands charged with the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
2. The second respondent is the recorded hereditary trustee of
Arulmigu Sevanthipatti Subramaniaswamy Temple, Mamsapuram,
Virudhunagar District. The temple is administered under a scheme
framed in O.S.No.34 of 1922 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramnad at
Madurai, by a decree dated 28.08.1923. As per the said scheme, non-
hereditary trustees can be selected only from among the members of the
Vellalar community residing within the seven villages, namely,
Mamsapuram, Thulukkankulam, Kanagakulam, Vaithiyalingapuram,
Ayanapuram, Samusikapuram and Sevanthipatti.
3. The following allegations emerge from the final report:-
a) A meeting is alleged to have been held on 19.06.2021 at 10.00
a.m. at Sivanthi Vinayagar Primary School, Mamsapuram, presided over
by A1;
__________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
b) The resolutions said to have been passed at that meeting, which
had already been handwritten in the resolution book of a community
body, were reproduced on letterheads and signed by A2 as Advisor, A1
as President, A3 as Secretary and the petitioner (A4) as Treasurer;
c) The resolutions recommended A5 and A6 for appointment as non-
hereditary trustees of the temple and falsely recorded that 700 members
of the Vellalar community from the seven scheme villages had attended
the meeting and signed the resolutions;
d) The accused do not belong to the scheme villages and have
described themselves by caste names which do not find a place in the
recognised caste list of the State;
e) On 23.09.2021, A5 and A6 applied to the Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE, Madurai, enclosing the said resolutions. On that basis, the
Joint Commissioner issued proceedings dated 06.01.2022 appointing
them as non-hereditary trustees.
4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(MD)
No.15933 of 2023, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Madurai,
conducted a statutory enquiry and, by his proceedings dated 27.02.2024,
recorded the following findings:-
a) The resolutions were fabricated;
__________
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
b) The Aadhaar cards produced in support of the resolutions
included those belonging to minor children;
c) The registration number of a society which had already been
dissolved was used.
5. In view of the said findings, an FIR came to be registered in
Crime No.348 of 2023 on 25.10.2023. After investigation, a final report
was filed as against A1 to A3 and the same was taken on file as
C.C.No.1023 of 2025. Ten witnesses, including the Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE, Madurai, have been cited.
Submissions of the learned Counsel on either side:-
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following
submissions:-
a) The petitioner has no connection with the matter. He merely
participated in the meeting and signed the resolution as Treasurer. He did
not apply for the post of non-hereditary trustee and has derived no benefit
whatsoever;
b) Section 147 of IPC is not attracted, as there is no allegation of
force, violence, threat or intimidation;
c) The resolutions were signed by the accused in their own names. A
disputed resolution or a list of supporters cannot constitute a “false
document” within the meaning of Section 464 of IPC so as to attract
__________
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. The Aadhaar cards belong to real
persons and are not shown to be fabricated, and no expert opinion or
forensic material has been collected;
d) The allegation that 700 supporters were claimed while only 428
Aadhaar cards were produced is, at best, a dispute about the quantum of
supporting documents. No property was delivered and no wrongful loss
was caused so as to attract Section 420 of IPC. In support of this
submission, he relied upon the decision in K.Azhagarasan v.
K.Palanichamy, 2010 Supreme (Mad.) 5195 .
7. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another,
(2009) 8 SCC 751 , the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the case is essentially a civil dispute over trusteeship which has been
given a criminal colour. The petitioner has been implicated with mala
fide intention merely because his name appears in the resolution as
Treasurer. He further submitted that A5 and A6 have already resigned.
8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the first respondent submitted that the investigating agency
has collected materials from the Office of the Joint Commissioner, HR &
CE, which have been filed along with the final report. The said materials
prima facie make out the offences against all the accused, including the
petitioner, and the truth of the defence can be tested only at the trial.
__________
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto
complainant made the following submissions:-
a) Two resolutions, both dated 19.06.2021, are said to have been
passed by two different bodies, namely, “Elur Vellalar Samugam” and
“Elur Veerakodi Vellalar Samugam”. Both are recorded as having been
passed by the same persons, at the same place and at the same time, and
both bear the petitioner’s signature as Treasurer;
b) The first resolution describes the body as comprising seven
villages including Rajapalayam and T.S.Ramalingapuram, which are not
scheme villages;
c) The second resolution bears Registration No.8/1960, which
belonged to Rajapalayam Veerakodi Vellalar Sangam, a society that had
been dissolved by G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.04.1989;
d) The petitioner himself resides at Rajapalayam, which is outside
the seven scheme villages;
e) The list of Aadhaar cards submitted along with names, signatures
and phone numbers includes those of minor children aged 3, 9 and 15
years, and of persons belonging to communities which are not eligible
under the scheme. These persons were represented before the statutory
authority as eligible members;
__________
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
f) The statement of the second respondent recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C. implicates the petitioner;
g) The earlier application had been rejected on 10.04.2021, even
before the impugned resolutions came into existence;
h) The resignation of A5 and A6 on 02.01.2023 does not efface the
offences already committed.
10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and perused the materials available on record, including the
final report and the typed sets of papers filed on either side.
Discussion:-
11. The principal contention of the petitioner is that a document
signed by a person in his own name cannot be a false document. This
contention overlooks the first limb of Section 464 of IPC, under which a
person is said to make a false document when he dishonestly or
fraudulently makes or signs a document or a part of a document, with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part was
made or signed by, or by the authority of, a person by whom or by whose
authority he knows that it was not made or signed.
12. The resolutions dated 19.06.2021 are not the personal documents
of the office bearers. They purport to record the collective decision of a
community body, said to have been taken at a meeting attended by 700
__________
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
eligible members from the seven scheme villages, who are stated to have
signed the same. The prosecution materials indicate that two resolutions,
in the names of two different bodies, are said to have been passed by the
same persons at the same place and time. They further reveal that one of
the resolutions bears the registration number of a society which was
dissolved as early as in the year 1989; that the body is described as
comprising villages which do not fall within the scheme; and that the
supporting list includes the Aadhaar cards of minor children and of
persons who are not eligible under the scheme. If these allegations are
taken at their face value, the resolutions falsely claim the authority of a
body and of persons who never gave such authority.
13. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed
Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751
does not advance the case of the petitioner. As held therein, a document is
false where, among other things, it is made or executed claiming to be
made by, or by the authority of, someone else. In that case, the accused
had executed a sale deed in his own name, without claiming the authority
of anyone else, and the dispute concerned title to private land. The
allegations in the present case stand on an entirely different footing, since
the documents in question claimed the authority of a body and of 700 of
its members and were placed before a statutory authority.
__________
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
14. As regards the argument that the Aadhaar cards are genuine, it is
not the case of the prosecution that the cards were fabricated. Its case is
that genuine identity cards, including those of minors, were used to
represent consent and eligibility which did not, in fact, exist. Likewise,
the absence of a handwriting expert’s opinion is immaterial, since the
falsity alleged relates to consent, attendance, eligibility and authority.
These are matters to be proved by oral and documentary evidence,
including the evidence of the Joint Commissioner (L.W.7).
15. Admittedly, the resolutions were enclosed with the application
dated 23.09.2021 and were acted upon in the proceedings dated
06.01.2022. Therefore, the ingredients of forgery for the purpose of
cheating (Section 468 of IPC) and of using a forged document as genuine
(Section 471 of IPC) are prima facie disclosed.
16. The person deceived is the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, who
is alleged to have been induced by the resolutions to appoint A5 and A6
as non-hereditary trustees, which he would not otherwise have done.
Wrongful loss to the defacto complainant is not an essential ingredient.
Under Section 24 of IPC, “dishonestly” covers wrongful gain to one
person as well as wrongful loss to another, and the appointment of A5
and A6 is alleged to be the wrongful gain so obtained. The submission
that the discrepancy between the claim of 700 members and the 428
Aadhaar cards produced is a mere matter of “sufficiency” cannot be
__________
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
accepted. The claim of support from 700 eligible members was itself the
representation that induced the order, and the falsity of that claim is the
very deception alleged.
17. The petitioner contends that there is no allegation of force or
violence, which is a necessary ingredient of rioting. Whether a charge
under Section 147 of IPC is to be framed, or whether the facts call for a
charge with the aid of any other provision, is a matter for the trial Court
to decide at the stage of framing of charges. Even if that charge were
doubtful, it would not justify quashing the entire proceedings when the
other offences are prima facie disclosed.
18. Insofar as the role of the petitioner is concerned, he himself
admits that he participated in the meeting and signed the resolution as
Treasurer. The materials show that he signed both the resolutions, and
that his signature as an office bearer lent the resolutions the appearance of
being the genuine act of a community body. His defences, namely, that he
did not apply for the post, that he obtained no benefit and that he lacked
the requisite intention, raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be
adjudicated in a petition to quash. Intention is a matter of inference to be
drawn from the evidence let in at the trial.
__________
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
19. The resignation of A5 and A6 on 02.01.2023 came only after the
appointment had been obtained and acted upon. Such subsequent conduct
does not wipe out the offences already committed.
20. The dispute regarding eligibility for trusteeship may have a civil
flavour. However, the allegation here is one of fabrication of resolutions
and supporting records, and their use to deceive a statutory authority,
which is criminal in nature. The availability of a civil or statutory remedy
is no bar to a prosecution where an offence is disclosed. The prosecution
in the present case follows a statutory enquiry held pursuant to the
directions of this Court and the consequent police investigation. No
material has been placed to show that it was instituted to wreak private
vengeance on the petitioner. Where the allegations disclose an offence,
the alleged motive of the complainant is not, by itself, a ground to quash
the proceedings.
21. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the allegations in
the final report, together with the materials collected during the
investigation, prima facie disclose the offences alleged against the
petitioner. The grounds raised involve disputed questions of fact and
matters of defence, which can be decided only at the trial. No case is
made out for this Court to exercise its inherent power.
__________
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
22. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only
for the purpose of deciding this petition. The trial Court shall decide the
case on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by
this Court.
Conclusion:-
23. In view of the above deliberations, this Court finds no merit in
the petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. However, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the
trial Court shall stand dispensed with, unless specifically directed by the
trial Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RJR
__________
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Srivilliputtur.
2. The Inspector Of Police,
Mamsapuram Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
Pre-delivery order made in
CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026
12.11.2026
__________
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:19:20 am )