Madras High Court
L. Amudha vs The Inspector Of Police on 24 August, 2022
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24/8/2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12886 and 12889 of 2022
L. Amudha ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Villupuram.
2. Ponnammal ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call
for the records culminating in the impugned C.C.No.156 of 2022 pending on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram and quash the same.
For Petitioner ... Mr.Arun Anbumani
for Mr.AR.Balaji
For respondents ... Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R.1
ORDER
Page No:1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022 This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash C.C.No.156 of 2022 in Crime No.22 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 109 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The gist of the allegation in the final report taken on file in C.C.No.156 of 2022 is that after the demise of Ramalingam, property comprised in S.Nos.74/12. 75/3C, 75/4b, 75/5B situated in Panampattu village and measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 5 cents owned by this father Subburayan devolved upon Ramalingam. After the demise of Ramalingam, the said property devolved upon the second respondent as his legal heir. On 21/11/1984, the second respondent and Ramalingam adopted Dhanasekaran, S/o. Kothandapani and Saroja, and the same was registered on the file of the Joint Sub-registrar, Villupuram. First accused, taking advantage of the second respondent's old age and knowing well that the second respondent has an adopted son, fraudulently brought out a sale Deed of the property in his favour, on the file of the Joint 2 Sub-Registrar, Villupuram, by taking the second respondent to the Registrar Office, under the pretext of joining her in an insurance policy and mislead the Sub-Registrar and Page No:2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022 obtained the Legal Heirship Certificate. Therefore, the petitioner has been prosecuted for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 109 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner was arrayed as A.2. Though the names of seven accused were shown in the First Information Report, except this petitioner and A.1, Investigation Officer had dropped the names of other accused.
4. Heard Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Senior Revenue Inspector, who has been arrayed as second accused unnecessarily. The very statement of the defacto complainant and her son claiming that the property was all along in possession of A.1 and it appears that A.1 has not registered the document, only allegation against the present petitioner is that she has given a false legal heirship certificate. Page No:3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022
6. According to the learned counsel, in fact, the legal heirship certificate was issued by the Tahsildar. The legal heirship certificate has been issued despite the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, viz., the petitioner indicating that there is one adopted son. However, the Tahsildar has ignored the report of Revenue Inspector and issued legal heirship certificate, whereas the present petitioner, who made genuine enquiry and found out the name of the adopted son has been implicated, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the fact about the issuance of legal heirship certificate by the Tahsildar. The admitted documents relied upon by the prosecution in the final report, is placed before this Court.
8. On a perusal of the same, it would indicate that prior to the issuance of legal heirship certificate by the Tahsildar, enquiry was conducted by the present petitioner. In the enquiry report, she has categorically recorded the fact that Page No:4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022 Ramaligam had adopted Dhanasekaran as his son and the enquiry report has been forwarded to the Tahsildar. Only based on the same, the Tahsildar had issued a legal heirship certificate omitting the adopted son's name as if Ramalingam had only one legal heir viz., his wife.
9. It is also relevant to note that some of the names of the accused have been removed from the final report. The Investigation Officer has filed his report holding that the Tahsildar has issued a legal notice only on the basis of the report of the present petitioner i.e., Senior Revenue Inspector. Therefore, he should be removed from the array of the accused which has been accepted by the trial Court.
10. It is relevant to note that in the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, he has enquiry recorded the fact that apart from the wife of Ramalingam, one adopted son Dhanasekaran is also there. Despite the above fact, the Tahsildar, has issued a different legal heirship certificate as if there is only one legal heir.
Page No:5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022
11. In such being a position, when the Tahsildar was omitted from the array of the accused whereas this petitioner who gave the correct report has been added as accused which is in fact something fishy in the investigation Officer's approach.
12. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the legal heirship certificate was issued by the petitioner with the connivance of A.1, whereas the legal heirship certificate was never issued by the petitioner. On the contrary, it was issued by the Tahsildar. In such a view of the matter, presumption against the present petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The petitioner has conducted the enquiry properly and she has given a report to the effect that there is an adopted son but which fact has been suppressed by the Tahsildar. However, the Investigation Officer very strangely omitted the name of the Tahsildar, for the reasons best known to him. Considering the above aspect, this Court is of the view that prosecution against this petitioner is a sheer abuse of process of law.
13. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and Page No:6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022 C.C.No.156 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Villupuram, is quashed, so far as the petitioner alone is concerned. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
24/8/2022 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order mvs.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram
2. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Villupuram.
3. The Public Prosecutor Madras.
Page No:7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J mvs.
Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022 Page No:8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.19596 of 2022 24/8/2022 Page No:9/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis