CRL OP(MD)/3387/2026 of Manikandan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Mamsapuram on 12 November 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; 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; 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

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.

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; 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

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. RJR Pre-delivery order made in CRL OP(MD) No. 3387 of 2026 12.11.2026