Madras High Court
T.Ravikumar vs P.Ravi on 25 November, 2022
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 09.11.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.9676, 10595, 10596, 10649 and 10650 of 2022
T.Ravikumar ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P (MD) No.14862 of 2022
Veluchamy ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P (MD) No.16017 of 2022
Rengasamy ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P (MD) No.16103 of 2022
vs
P.Ravi ...Respondent in all Crl.O.Ps.,
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to private complaints filed
by the Respondent/complainant pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Karur in C.C.Nos.335 and 355 of 2022 and quash the
same.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
For Petitioners
in all Crl.O.Ps., : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for
Mr.I.Vel Pradeep
For Respondent
in all Crl.O.Ps., : Mr.A.Robinson
COMMON ORDER
All the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the private complaints filed by the Respondent/Complainant pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur in C.C.Nos.335 and 355 of 2022.
2. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14862 of 2022 is arrayed as second accused in C.C.No.335 of 2022. The case was filed as a private complaint by the Respondent, Ravi. It is the case of the Respondent that his wife, R.Poongodi and his brother's wife, Ramya had acquired the property in S.Nos.590/1 and 590/2, which are situated at Thanthoni Village, Karur District under the settlement deed dated 01.12.2008 registered as Doc.No. 7376/2008. The property originally belonged to the Respondent's mother, Chellammal. UDR patta also stands in her name.
2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
3.The first accused, Anbazhagan in the criminal complaint had no right over the said property. He is alleged to have created false document as if he is having 1 acre 1.05-3/4 cents in the said survey numbers. He is also alleged to have sold the property to the third accused, vide sale deed dated 22.09.2009 registered as Doc.No.7004/2009 in the Sub Registrar Office, Karur. The Petitioner herein had prepared the sale deed. The accused 4 and 5 are alleged to have attested as witnesses to the sale deed dated 22.09.2009. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur had taken cognizance of the private complaint against all the accused for the offences under Sections 465 467, 468, 469, 420 and 120B IPC.
4.The specific allegation against the Petitioner in the complaint is that he prepared the sale deed dated 22.09.2009 and conspired to the alleged overt act in the private complaint. The Petitioner is a leading Senior Advocate practising in Karur District Court and in and around the Districts from the year 1993. He had completed 30 years of Advocate practice on the civil side.
3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
5.It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that on perusal of the connected documents/parent deeds and instructions submitted by his client/vendor/first accused, Anbazhagan, which was more fully stated in page No.2 of the sale deed dated 22.09.2009, the Petitioner only had prepared the said sale deed. The Petitioner had no direct or indirect involvement in the said alleged disputed property in any manner whatsoever.
6.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the civil suit in O.S.No.52 of 2018 is pending on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur, which was filed by the third accused seeking for partition, in which the Respondent's wife, his brother's wife and his mother were impleaded as first, second and third accused respectively.
7.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Police Officials of the District Crime Branch at Karur had conducted proper enquiry on the complaint of the Respondent dated 25.11.2020 and observed that the Respondent has no documents to substantiate the ownership other than the UDR patta, which stands in the 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 name of the Respondent's mother and closed the case as civil in nature, vide detailed order dated 23.01.2020. The Respondent with an ulterior motive to harass the Petitioner had suppressed several facts in the impugned private complaint and lodged a false and frivolous complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur. The Petitioner herein had been impleaded falsely in this case to arrive at an unlawful settlement through him and to defame him by showing him as an accused, where he is actively practising as Advocate.
8.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the criminal complaint prepared by the Respondent, which does not contain the ingredients of Sections 465 467, 468, 469, 420 and 120B IPC. Such offences are not at all made out. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash the complaint pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur in C.C.No.335 of 2022.
9.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that Crl.O.P. (MD) No.16017 of 2022 had been filed by the fifth accused seeking to 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 quash the private complaint in C.C.No.355 of 2022 pending of the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.
10.As per the private complaint prepared by the Respondent/Ravi, the role of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16017 of 2022 is that he attested as a witness on the sale deed prepared by the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14862 of 2022. He is also a practising Advocate.
11.The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022 is arrayed as third accused. He affixed his signature as a witness in the sale deed prepared by A2, the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14862 of 2022. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022/A3 is the bona fide purchaser of the property from Anbazhagan. He had purchased the property after careful perusal of the title deeds, encumbrance certificate, patta and revenue records from the date of purchase till the date of the Petitioner is in physical possession. The Respondent/complainant has no claim or right over the property.
12.The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022/A3, Rengasamy 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 had filed O.S.No.52 of 2018 before the learned Principal District Judge, Karur against the defacto complainant's wife and his brother's wife for the relief of partition and separate possession and the same is still pending. The District Crime Branch, Karur had conducted an enquiry and found that the claim of the defacto complainant/Respondent is without any basis. Therefore, the enquiry was closed by the police. Mere reading of the complaint prepared by the Respondent does not incriminate the Petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 465 467, 468, 469, 420 and 120B IPC.
13.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the original owner of the property is Dhandavan Chettiar, who had purchased the property in 1943. It has Patta No.590 for 5 acres and 11 cents. Dhandavan Chettiar had two sons, Pazhaniappan Chettiar and Ramasamy Chettiar. After the death of Dhandavan Chettiar, the property, measuring an extent of 5 acres and 11 cents, was enjoyed by Pazhaniappan Chettiar and Ramasamy Chettiar jointly, having a share of 2 acres and 50 cents each. Ramasamy Chettiar had no issues. He executed a Will, in which he gave life estate to his wife, Kamalam. After her death, it devolved on Anbazhagan, 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 who is the vendor of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022 and claims to be the adopted son of Ramasamy Chettiar (tsh;g;G kfd;). After the death of Ramasamy Chettiar, Anbazhagan had succeeded to the property of Ramasamy Chettiar, which is is the undivided 1/4 share.
14.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the copy of the sale deed, dated 22.09.2009, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16013 of 2022/A3, Rengasamy, in whose favour the sale deed dated 22.09.2009 is executed by the Petitioner, Anbazhagan, who claims to be the adopted son of Ramasamy Chettiar. He had traced the title of the property in the sale deed dated 22.09.2009. 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
15.Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the purchaser, the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022/A3, had filed a suit in O.S.No.52 of 2018, where the wife of the Respondent/complainant and his brother's wife are the defendants along with others. When the civil suit filed by the plaintiff, the purchaser from Anbazhagan, for partition of his share through the purchaser Rengasamy, the defendants 1 and 2 had approached the Criminal Court converting the civil dispute into a criminal case to pressurize the Petitioners to settle the property in favour of the complainant. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks to quash the criminal complaints prepared by the Respondent herein on behalf of his wife and his brother's wife against the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.14862, 16013 and 16103 of 2022.
16.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751.
“A.Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Disputes 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 which essentially are civil in nature, filed as criminal complaints Criminal court’s duty to check abuse of process — Held, criminal courts should ensure that criminal proceedings are not misused for settling scores or pressurising parties to settle civil disputes — However, civil disputes in some cases may also contain ingredients of criminal offences — Such disputes have to be entertained notwithstanding they are also civil disputes B.Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 464, 24, 25, 29 and 29-A — False document — What constitutes — Held, a person is said to have made a false document, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered with a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses — Further held, in the first category of false documents, it in not sufficient that the document has been made/executed dishonestly or fraudulently — There is the further requirement that the document should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made/executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed—Fraud/Mala fides— False document (Paras 14 to 17) C.Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 467, 471, 463 and 464 — Forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (S. 467) — Using of forged document as genuine (S. 471) — Ingredients of the said offences Held, basic ingredient of both the offences is that there should be “forgery” as defined in S. 463 and forgery in turn depends 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 Upon creation of a “false document” as defined in S. 464 — If there is no “false document” as defined in S. 464, offences under Ss. 467 and 471 are not made out — Further held, mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant’s property, did not amount to commission of offences under Ss. 467 and 471 even if title to property did not vest in the executant — This was for the reason that no “false document” as defined in S. 464, was created Accused 1 had executed a sale deed in favour of Accused 2, claiming that the property being sold belonged to Accused 1. Second respondent filed a criminal complaint that the title to the property sold, belonged to the second respondent and therefore Accused 1 had committed offences under Sections 467 and.471 IPC. Accused 1’s plea was that the property was mutated in his name, he was having its possession and was also paying land revenue for it.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Accused 1 had committed an act of forgery even if the facts alleged by the second respondent were accepted as true. Trial court and High Court dismissed Accused 1 ’s plea for quashing of criminal complaint. Reversing this decision and partly allowing the appeal the Supreme Court, held as above.
D.Penal Code, 1860 — 5s. 415 and 24— Cheating — Instances of — Person who make complaint against cheating — Sale of property by a person knowing that property did not belong to him 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 — Held, seller defrauds purchaser — Purchaser is entitled to prosecute seller under S. 415 but a third party cannot do so Held:
When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a c co-accused. It is also not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him. Nor did the complainant allege that first appellant pretended to be complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard ^ to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418,419 or 420 IPC. (Paras 20 to 23) E.Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 415 and 420 — Ingredients of, reiterated (Paras 18 and 19) F.Penal Code, 1860 — S. 25 — Fraud — Meaning of — 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 Criminal g culpability for, when attracted — Held, fraud is neither defined in IPC nor has it been made an offence in IPC — However, certain specified acts when done fraudulently constitute offences (as in the cases of offences under Ss. 206 to 208, 210, 239, 240, 242, 243, 246 to 253, 255 to 261, 264 to 266, 415 to 424 463 to 471, 474, 477 and 496 IPC) — It cannot therefore be assumed that a person committed an offence, merely by alleging or showing that he acted fraudulently, unless the fraudulent act is specifically made an offence f under IPC or some other law — Contract Act, 1872 — S. 17 — Fraud/Mala tides — When a criminal offence (Paras 24 and 28) G.Penal Code, 1860 — S. 504 — Intentional insult to provoke breach of peace _ Ingredients of offence — Accused 1 and 2 who respectively were seller and purchaser of land, alleged to have asserted to complainant (who claimed to be real owner of property) that they would obtain possession of property under sale deeds and complainant could do whatever he wanted — Held such an assertion did not amount to insult with intent to provoke breach of peace — Offence under S. 504 was therefore not made out” 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
17.The learned Counsel for the Respondent/complainant in all the Criminal Original Petitions would submit that the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot at all be accepted to quash the private complaints. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/complainant invited the attention of this Court to the additional typed set of papers furnished by him, in which the details were given for S.Nos.590/1 and 590/2, which stand in the name of Chellammal. Copy of the patta pass book of Chellammal is also enclosed along with typed set of papers, which gives patta No.373 for S.Nos.590/1 and 590/2 and stands in the name of Chellammal.
18.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that tracing of the title itself is without any proper documents when the property belonged to one Dhandavan Chettiar, whose son, Ramasamy Chettiar, had no issues. Therefore, he had executed a Will in favour of his wife for her life time and “subsequent to her death, in favour of Anbazhagan” are words used in the Will, a copy of which, is filed along with the typed set of papers. How the said Anbazhagan succeeded to the 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 property had not been stated clearly.
19.It is to be noted that the said Anbazhagan, the vendor of Rengasamy, the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022, is an Advocate. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14862 of 2022, who drafted the sale deed, is also an Advocate. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 16017 of 2022, who is the witness and had affixed his signature as a witness to the sale deed, is also an Advocate. Therefore, the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16017 of 2022, the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14862 of 2022 and the vendor of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022, Anbazhagan, had colluded and created the documents, thereby fraudulently executed the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022. What are all submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot at all be accepted to quash the private complaints of the Respondent.
20.It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant that only to escape from the criminal law, the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022 on the advise of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16017 of 2022 and the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 14862 of 2022 had filed the said suit only misusing the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of case of State of Haryana vs.Ch.Bhajan Lal reported in (AIR) 1992 SC 604) that in cases, when civil dispute is pending before the Civil Court, criminal complaints can be quashed. Also, misusing the reported rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, three Advocates have indulged in land grabbing. Therefore, these petitions are filed with criminal intention, which cannot be accepted.
21.The learned Counsel for the Respondent would further submit that at the earliest stage, when the Respondent had made complaint, the Police Officials had declined to register the case, considering the status of the accused, who are all Advocates and to avert any controversy against the Police Officials. Scared of initiating criminal action against the practising Advocates, who had indulged in fraudulent deed, the Police refused to register the case. The Respondent has no other choice than to approach the Criminal Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur to file the criminal complaint. The criminal complaints were filed after granting sufficient time to the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 for an amicable settlement. Since they had not availed the 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 time granted by the Respondent, the Respondent had proceeded with the complaints.
22.The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeking to quash the criminal compliant cannot be accepted, when the defendants had, in the written statement in O.S.No.52 of 2018, claimed fraud on the part of the vendor of the Plaintiff. Further, the vendor of the Plaintiff is not at all impleaded either as Plaintiff or as Defendant in the said suit. Copy of the decree passed by the learned District Judge, Karur dated 14.07.2022 dismissing the suit for non-prosecution is also enclosed in the additional typed set of papers by the learned Counsel for the Respondent.
23.As per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs.Ch.Bhajan Lal reported in (AIR) 1992 SC
604), the documents, which have sterling qualities, shall be relied upon while quashing of the FIR, Charge Sheet and the private complaint. Here, the Respondent/Complainant had furnished a copy of the decree passed by the learned District Judge, Karur in O.S.No.52 of 2018, dismissing the suit for non-prosecution. Therefore, only to attract the provisions that the civil 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 suit is pending between the parties, criminal complaint was filed by the defendants. Therefore, seeking to quash the criminal complaints based on the same ruling, the Petitioners have filed these three Criminal Original Petitions.
24.Therefore, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are rejected, in the light of the suit having been dismissed and in the light of the written statement filed by the Defendants that the Plaintiff had played fraud by creating the sale deed with the help of Anbazhagan, the vendor of the plaintiff, who claims to be the adopted son (tsh;g;G kfd;) of Ramasamy Chettiar, but there is no proof of adoption. If he is the adopted son (tsh;g;G kfd;), he should have given the details regarding adoption. To prove his contention, he should have enclosed the copies of the adoption deed and the decree granted by the competent Civil Court in favour of Ramasamy Chettiar, in whose favour the property belongs. But he had not done so. Merely stating that he is the adopted son (tsh;g;G kfd;) and executed the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022, who is arrayed as A3 in the criminal complaint amounts to fraud 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 played by Anbazhagan.
25.The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.14862 of 2022, T.Ravi Kumar, who is the practising Advocate that only to defame him in public, the criminal case had been instituted against him, which is an abuse of process of the Court cannot at all be accepted.
26.Also, he states that he had prepared the sale deed, on instructions from Anbazhagan after verification of the revenue records. If he had been true to his profession following ethics and etiquette, he should have sought details regarding the claim of Anbazhagan, who is also an Advocate, as to how he claims to be the adopted son (tsh;g;G kfd;) of Ramasamy Chettiar. When the title had transferred upto Ramasamy Chettiar, from Ramasamy Chettiar, Anbazhagan creates the deed. His friend, T.Ravi kumar, who is also a practising Advocate, prepared the sale deed as though Anbazhagan is the adopted son (tsh;g;G kfd;). When Anbazhagan’s initial is 'B', he is not the son of, “Ramasamy Chettiar”. He cannot claim that he is the son of 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 Ramasamy Chettiar. If he is the adopted son (tsh;g;G kfd;) of Ramasamy Chettiar, he should have furnished the relevant documents regarding the claim of adoption by Ramasamy Chettiar.
27.The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in all the cases is that Ramasamy Chettiar executed a Will in favour of his wife, Kamalammal. Ramasamy Chettiar did not have children. Therefore, he executed a Will in favour of his wife to enjoy for her life time and after her life time, it is in favour of his adopted son is found unacceptable in the absence of documents. Therefore, the reliance cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners will not apply to the facts of the case. Hence, it is rejected.
20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
28.The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the complaint prepared by the Respondent was registered as FIR, subsequently closed by the District Crime Branch, Karur, subsequently, the Respondent had filed the private complaint only to harass the Petitioners and therefore, these petitions are not maintainable was objected by the learned Counsel for the Respondent placing reliance on the following rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
“(i) in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ranjit Singh reported in 1999 (2) Supreme 291
(ii) In the case of Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani Vs. G.D.Mehrotra and another reported in 2001 (4) Supreme 584.”
29.Here also, the vendor of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022, Anbazhagan claims title over the property of Ramasamy Chettiar, S/o. Dhandavan Chettiar as though Anbazhagan, Advocate is the adopted son (tsh;g;G kfd;), no document had been furnished or the details of the recitals as to how he acquired title to the property of Ramasamy Chettiar, had not been furnished. That itself is fraudulent. Further more, the person, who drafted the sale deed is also a practising Advocate, is the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14862 of 2022. He should have followed ethics and 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 etiquette of his profession while preparing the sale deeds. Merely stating that Anbazhagan, Advocate is the adopted son (tsh;g;G kfd;) will not hold good in a Court of law.
30.It is also to be noted that in the suit in O.S.No.52 of 2018 filed on the basis of the said sale deed by the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022, Rengasamy seeking partition against the defendants, he had not impleaded Anbazhagan either as Defendant or as the Plaintiff, whereas the Defendants had clearly disputed the title of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16103 of 2022, Rengasamy was scared that if he enters into the witness box, he will be cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Defendants, in which case the truth will come out. That is why, he failed to prosecute the case in O.S.No.52/2018, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, vide judgment and decree of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur dated 14.07.2022.
31.The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 offences are not attracted in this case, is rejected in the light of the above discussion. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the District Crime Branch, Karur having registered the case did not proceed with the same and they had filed a negative final report before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur. Subsequently, this criminal complaint had been lodged, is found unacceptable, considering the fact that the Police will be slow in registering the case against the Advocates even though there are materials available with them. That emboldens the Advocates to indulge in illegal activities. Here, it is the fact of prima facie land grabbing using fraudulent deeds. The affected party does not have any other choice than to proceed with the criminal complaint as private complaint when the Police Officials refused to proceed with the same. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is found applicable to the facts of the case.
23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
32.In the light of the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the subject matter is to be considered only during the trial by adducing evidence and not by invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is found acceptable.
33.In the light of the above discussion, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed, directing the Petitioners herein to co-operate with the trial Court.
34. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur shall proceed with the trial in C.C.Nos.335 and 355 of 2022 and dispose of the same within the reasonable period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the Petitioners are the practising Advocates, their appearance may be dispensed with on proper application to be filed by them. Their appearance is required only for issuance of copies for framing charges and for recording the evidence of the complainant and the complainant's witnesses, if identity of the Petitioners is required.
35.Also, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur shall not grant 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 time to defer cross-examination and recall the witnesses at the whims and fancies of the Accused or their appearing Counsels. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur shall also adhere to the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in CDJ 2015 SC 115, wherein, it is reiterated that the witnesses in criminal trial shall be cross-examined on the date of their appearance before the Court and they shall not be recalled as per the whims and fancies of the Counsels or the parties/accused.
36. If the Accused does not co-operate with the trial proceedings resulting in issuance of NBW, the learned Judicial Magistrate may issue look out notice through the office of the Superintendent of Police and also shall notify the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry through the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur through the Registrar General, High Court, Madras for disciplinary action against them. 25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022 In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Internet :Yes./No 25.11.2022
Index :Yes/No
mm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Karur.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
26/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mm
Common Order made in
Crl.O.P (MD) Nos.14862, 16017 and 16103 of 2022
25.11.2022
27/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis