Madras High Court
B. Rajamanikandan vs The State Rep. By on 29 March, 2021
CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 16.02.2021
Pronounced on : 29.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017
B. Rajamanikandan : Petitioner / Defacto complainant
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
ALGSC (CCB),
Madurai City Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime No. 102 of 2012)
2.Pappna Shet
3.Saraladevi
4.Arumugathammal
5.Dhamodharan
6.Sethulingam
7.S.Prabhu
8.S.Rajendrababu
9.S.Thangalakhsmi
10.P.S. Sunder
11.S. Rani : Respondents / Respondents
1/13
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017
PRAYER:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401
Cr.P.C., against the order dated 13.02.2015 in RCS.No.2 of 2015 on the
file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Exclusive
Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai.
For petitioner : Mr. A.L. Kannan
For R1 : Mrs.S.E. Veronica Vincent
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2, R3, R5, R7 to R9 : No appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in RCS.No.2 of 2015, dated 13.02.2015 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai.
2. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant. He filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., against the respondents 2 to 11 herein, seeking a direction to the first respondent to register the First Information Report on his complaint and to proceed with the investigation. The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the said petition on file in Crl.M.P.No. 6892 of 2012 and as per the order passed by the learned 2/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 Magistrate, First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No. 102 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 420, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC against the respondents 2 to 11 on the file of CCB-ALGSC, Madurai City.
3. It is evident from the records that the first respondent has filed a final report in Crime No. 102 of 2012 as further action dropped, that after receiving the final report, the learned Magistrate has sent a notice to the defacto complainant / revision petitioner herein and that since the notice sent through RPAD was returned un-served, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order on 13.02.2015 accepting the final report and thereby, closed the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the defacto complainant has come forward with the present revision.
4. Whether the impugned order passed in RCS.No.2 of 2015, dated 13.02.2015 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai is liable to be set aside? is the point for consideration. 3/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the Special Court failed to see that absolutely there was no investigation by the first respondent, that the Special Judge ought to have seen that the first respondent had not even recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., that the Special Court ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the complainant before accepting the closure report and that the notice sent to the revision petitioner has been returned as insufficient address and therefore, notice was not duly served. He would further contend that the learned Special Judge ought to have seen that threatening to kill a man by person who are politically powerful could not be termed as civil in nature and that the Special Court has failed to see that the first respondent had examined neither the complainant nor any independent witnesses and the closure report is not supported by materials.
6. Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer the averments of the revision petitioner raised in his complaint, as evident from the First Information Report;
4/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017
a) The petitioner is the son of one Paulraj. The 4 th respondent is the mother and the respondent 5 and 6 are brothers of the said Paulraj. The respondents 7 to 9 are the legal heirs of the 6th respondent.
b) The lands measuring an extent of 10 Cents in T.S.No. 1943 / 1C1 at Kaja Street, M.K.Puram, Madurai belonged to the said Paulraj, who got the said property in a partition along with his brothers and father. After getting the said property, the said Paulraj sold about 2 cents of land vide sale deed, dated 16.09.1985.
c) During the year 2006, one Papna Shet and his wife Sarala Devi attempted to encroach the lands that belonged to Paulraj, who died on 14.07.1994, which got devolved on his heirs. The lodging of the police complaints were of no avail. Thereafter, the lands were kept idle and he was continuing to be in possession. On 07.10.2012 at about 8.00 am, the respondents 2 to 11 had again made an attempt to encroach the lands.
d) The respondents 9 and 10 are politically influential and hence, they threatened to kill the petitioner and on enquiry, the petitioner 5/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 came to know that they have fabricated the documents to make claim for the property and with intend to grab the lands. Since the complaints to the police were of no avail, he filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Madurai, who inturn forwarded the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
7. As already pointed out, the first respondent police, after investigation, has laid the final report as further action dropped. It is necessary to refer the result of the investigation, as evident from the final report submitted by the investigating Officer;
(a) One Arumugathammal alleged to be the grand mother of the revision petitioner had six sons viz., (1) Sethulingam, (2) Rajendran (3) Murugesan (4) Paulraj (5) Damodaran and (6) Mohan and a daughter by name Pappa Alias Kasi Vishalakshi. The said Arumugathammal purchased the property now under dispute on 12.04.1961 from one Husainmiya Saiybu vide document No.33221 / 1961 and since then she had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After death of her second son Rajendran, Arumugathammal and her remaining 5 sons have entered 6/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 into a partition deed on 10.09.1976 vide document No.1894/76 and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property allotted to their shares. Since the last son Mohan, who was found missing has not turned up, the said Arumugathammal had been enjoying her property along with property of the said Mohan. Paulraj sold an extent of 2 cents and 5 ½ square feet on 16.09.1985 to one Mani vide document No.4458 of 1985.
b) The petitioner's mother Nirmala previously got married with one Ezhilraj and had a son by name Ravikumar. Since the said Nirmala was abandoned by her husband and while she was residing in the property owned by Arumugathammal, she got acquainted with the said Paulraj and both of them started to live together without marriage and due to that, they had a son Rajamanikandan, the revision petitioner herein and two daughters viz., Rajalakshmi and Mercy. Since the said Paulraj had died without marriage, his mother Arumugathammal had sold the remaining property of the Paulraj on 25.08.2006 to the third respondent and executed a power of attorney to 10 th respondent in respect of the remaining property who in turn sold the same to his wife / 11th respondent 7/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 on 18.09.2006 vide document No.7612 of 2006. The respondents 2,3, 10 and 11 after making constructions in the property, have been in possession and enjoyment of the same from 2006 onwards. The said Arumugathammal died on 02.10.2012.
8. The investigating Officer, after referring to the above factual aspects and by observing that there existed legal heirship dispute and the property dispute between the parties and that since no incident was occurred as alleged by the defacto complainant, has arrived at a decision to stop the proceedings, as “Further action dropped”.
9. It is necessary to refer the following paragraph in the final report hereunder for better appreciation;
“NkYk; kDjhuh; uh[kzpfz;ld;> mtuJ jhahh; kw;Wk; rNfhjhpfSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;ljhf $wg;gLk; ,t;tof;F nrhj;ij mtuJ je;ij ghy;uh[_f;F ghfg;ghj;jpaj;jpd; %yk; nfhLj;j mtuJ jhahh; MWKfj;jk;khs; kw;Wk; mtuJ rNfhjuh;fs; ghy;uh[_ ,we;j gpd;dh; mtuth;
8/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 gq;ifAk; ghy;uh[; fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;jJ Nghf kPjg; gq;fpd; thhpRjhuh; MWKfj;jk;khs;
vd Fwpg;gpl;L fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;jjhy;
tof;F nrhj;J rk;ke;jkhd gpur;rid
chpikapay; rk;ke;jg;gl;ljhf fhzg;gLfpwJ.
NkYk; ghy;uh[; vd;gthpd; gq;F jdf;F
ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd fpiuak; nra;j nfhLj;j
MWKfj;jk;khs; 02.10.2012 k;
Njjp ,we;Jtpl;lgbahYk;> fpiuak; ngw;w
egh;fshd 1 tJ vjphp ghg;dhNrl;> 2 tJ vjphp
rushNjtp> 9 tJ vjphp Re;jh;> 10tJ vjphp uhzp
MfpNahh; Nkw;gb ,lj;jpy; fl;blk; fl;b trpj;Jk;
njhopy; nra;Jk; fle;j 2006 Mk; Mz;L KjNy mth;fsJ mDgtj;jpy; itj;Js;shh;fs;. vdNt tof;fpd; kDjhuuhy; Nfhug;gLk; nrhj;J thhpR chpik rk;ke;jg;gl;ljhf cs;sjhy; ,g;gpur;rid Kw;wpYk; chpikapay; rk;ke;jg;gl;l gpur;ridahf cs;sJ.”
10. Considering the above, as rightly observed by the Investigating Officer, there existed civil dispute between the parties and that the revision petitioner by referring an incident so as to attract Section 9/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC., had attempted to change the civil case into criminal case.
11. As already pointed out, after the receipt of the final report, the learned Magistrate has sent a notice about the filing of the final report as further action dropped through RPAD, but the same was returned as insufficient address. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that the address given in the postal cover is not correct. Moreover, it is further evident that the first respondent Police has filed the final report along with the notice served on the revision petitioner. It is also not the case of the revision petitioner that no such notice was served on him by the first respondent Police.
12. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, (Crl. Side) after returning of the Registered postal cover as insufficient address, the Court is not expected to keep the final report pending and consequently, the First Information Report for ever. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), since the action dropped report has been accepted and the case was closed, it 10/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 cannot be said that the revision petitioner is without remedy and he could have very well filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., Even assuming for arguments sake that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not proper, remanding the matter back to the Magistrate at this point of time would not serve any purpose and would not be in the interest of justice. Moreover, as already pointed out, the petitioner has been attempting only to give his civil dispute into a criminal flavour or colour.
13. Considering the above, this Court decides that the above revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and the above point is answered accordingly.
14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
29.03.2021 Index : Yes : No Internet : Yes : No trp 11/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 To The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai.
12/13 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
trp Pre-delivery order made in CRL.RC(MD).No. 266 of 2017 29.03.2021 13/13 http://www.judis.nic.in