Supreme Court - Daily Orders
L.J. Singaravelan vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Sanjay Karol
ITEM NO.45 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 32885/2023
(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 25-04-2023 in
CRLOP No. 1872/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras)
L.J. SINGARAVELAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.178476/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.178481/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 30-10-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Raj, Adv.
Mr. Abhita Banu, Adv.
Mr. Dr. Ram Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Km Vignesh Ram, Adv.
Ms. Shilpa Liza George, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The matter pertains to seventeen transactions and for the uncompleted transactions, suit for specific performance was filed where certain orders were passed by the learned Single Judge and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2023.11.02 the 16:14:46 IST Reason: Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in its original jurisdiction.
1 The senior counsel would firstly read the chargesheet dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure P/5) submitted before the Special Court dealing with the land grabbing cases. Adverting then to the Map (Annexure P/3), the counsel would submit that in none of the sale deeds, pertaining to the Plot No. 1 (measuring 171 cents), any pathway was shown and therefore in the chargesheet, it is stated that documents have been fabricated to wrongly show the common pathway of 33 feet in Plot No. 1. If the pathway is taken into account, the land purchased by the petitioner would get reduced to 146 cents from the original purchased 161.5 cents. With the above, it is argued by Mr. Ranjit Kumar that there is no basis for the High Court to quash the petitioner’s complaint as the prayer in the suit for specific performance is for Plot No. 2 and the suit had noting to do with the Plot No. 1 for which the complaint was filed and the Police had indicated in the chargesheet, on the conspiracy amongst the sellers. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2