Madras High Court
G.Raguraman vs The Additional Deputy Superintendent ... on 5 February, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Judgment Reserved on : 21.01.2020
Judgment Pronounced on : 05.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19213 of 2019
1.G.Raguraman
2.B.Sathiyamoorthy ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1&2
Vs.
The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Thanjavur. ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, to quash the proceedings in Special Case No.6 of 2018,
pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate / The
Special Judge, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, as illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
Senior Counsel
For Mr.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate (crl.side)
1/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners / A1 & A2, seeking to quash the proceedings in Special Case No.6 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate / The Special Judge, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam.
2. The respondent / complainant filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and another for the offence under Sections 120(B), 465, 467, 468, 471 and 477 of IPC., and Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the charge sheet, L.Ws.1 to 26 and Documents LD.1 to LD26 and the Statement of Witnesses have been annexed.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the 1 st petitioner was the former Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thanjavur and the 2nd petitioner was VAO of Pudupattinam, Thanjavur Taluk, during the relevant period. One Asraf Ali had lodged a complaint and after preliminary enquiry, a regular case was registered against the accused persons. In T.S.Nos.49 & 59, the said Asraf Ali's father Sulaiman Sahif was owning lands. Investigation revealed that Patta 2/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 Transfer Order, Copy of Chitta and 'A' Register, Enquiry Report of Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Land Tax Name Transfer Order, Urban Land Tax Form and Order, Urban Land Tax Receipts, Extract of Town Survey Register and certain documents for T.S.No. 49 were possessed by the accused Abdul Rashid showing him as owner of the vacant land in T.S.No.49, to the extent of 7,848 sq.ft. and the same was not updated neither in the Village Records nor in the Municipal Records, till 2011.
4. During the year 1995, while applying for Urban Land Tax (ULT), the Accused Abdul Rashid intentionally showed his land extent as 12,635 Sq.ft instead of 7,848 sq.ft and was able to receive ULT order, for the extent of 12,635 sq.ft. Thereafter, he applied for getting Patta Transfer Order in T.S.49 to that extent, by using that ULT Order. During the year 2011, the Accused No.3 colluded with the 2nd petitioner moved to get patta for T.S.No.49, based on the ULT order. The petitioners / Accused Nos.A1 & A2 and A3 conspired together to create fabricated documents in favour of A3 by illegal means. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the accused deliberately failed to call for explanation regarding the extent from Sulaiman Sahif whose name is specified in the Village Record in T.S.49. Further, A2 intentionally issued false hand chitta and submitted 3/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 false recommendation to A1, to issue false patta order, in favour of A3. A1 intentionally passed false Patta Transfer Order bjh/K/g.kh/No. 1118/2011/M.8, dated 03.02.2011, to an extent of 11,860 Sq.ft., without considering the Village 'A' Register, Chitta Register and Municipality Records.
5. Based on the fabricated documents, issued by A1 and A2, as genuine, A3 had executed a 'Dhana Settlement' Document No. 2012/2015, in favour of his wife, for T.S.49. Investigation further revealed that the entire file for issuance of false patta order, passed by A1, was missing, not found in Thanjavur Taluk Office. The file was not handed over by A1 to Record Room of Taluk Office and the same has not been updated in the Distribution Register of Taluk Office, Thanjavur. Thus, they had committed the above offence.
6. The contention of Mr.V.Kathirvelu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the District Revenue Officer was not able to trace out the title of the parties with regard to T.S.49 and directed the parties to approach the civil Court in this regard. Hence, the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, till the title is yet to be decided by the rival parties viz., the defacto 4/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 complainant and A3. In view of the same, there cannot be any criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The petitioners have recommended for transfer of patta based on the order of ULT and for that, they cannot be charged for criminal prosecution.
7. Contending further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in this case, there is no allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioners. There is no proof regarding conspiracy by the petitioners with other accused. The transfer of patta does not amount to any false creation of any false documents and thereby, the accused had not committed any forgery and there is no question of cheating involved in this case, based on the forged documents. Further, there is no cancellation, destruction or defacing the documents, hence, there cannot be fraudulently, dishonestly usage of any forged documents, as genuine.
8. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that one of the witness viz., Indira had stated that though A3 had made a settlement to his wife, by Document No.2012/2115, dated 08.04.2015, she was not certain about how her name had crept in to the Land Register. The other witness viz., Vimala, Surveyor had stated that it was one Indira and Vijayakumari the then surveyors, 5/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 who would be the right persons to answer the same. Strangely, in this case, neither they are shown as witness nor as accused.
9. The witness Rajkumar, Assistant Director, Lands Survey Department, states that there seems to be some discrepancies with regard to extent of land recorded in the Town Survey Records. Witness Abdul Latif, Retired Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai, states that the Tax was collected from A3 during the Fasli 1401 to 1405, for the land holdings, as per the Town Survey Records. Hence, the officials from the Revenue Department as well as Survey Department are not certain about when the mistakes had crept in the records. Further, the mistakes had crept in, when the petitioners were not in service there and hence, no criminality could be attributed against the petitioners. For the allegation of receipt of illegal gratification, the entire case rest on the statement of witness Nasar, who states that the petitioners had received money for issuance of patta. Further, there is no witness as regard the charge of conspiracy. Earlier, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint on similar facts to the Anti- Land Grabbing Cell, Thanjavur, which was closed, directing the parties to approach the civil Court. In view of the same, this complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption is the second complaint, which is not maintainable.
6/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019
10. Further, the learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contention, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dr.Anup Kumar Srivastava reported in (2018 (1) SCC (Cri) 816), made emphasis that when the matter is predominantly civil in nature, it leaves no scope for element of criminality nor does it satisfy ingredients of criminal offence of which accused is charged. Further, for the proposition that there is no demand and acceptance of bribe in any form by the petitioner, charge cannot be said to have been established. In the absence of any material evidence to prove conspiracy of demand and acceptance of illegal illegal gratification, the case against them is to be quashed.
11. Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case, the accused have conspired together in tampering and forging the official records. From the statement of witnesses and documents it emerges that there has been a conspiracy between the accused to do an illegal act for illegal means and the ultimate offence consists of chain of action that each conspirator had knowledge of what the other collaborator would do. Hence, each of 7/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 the accused have collaborated with each other in creation of forged documents and issuance of patta by the 1st petitioner in bjh/K/g.kh/No.1118/2011/M.8, dated 03.02.2011, which is extracted hereunder for better appreciation:-
“Miz kDjhuh; gl;lh khw;wk; Nfhup nfhLj;Js;s kD njhlu;ghf cupa tprhuiz nra;J fPo;fz;lthW Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ.
jQ;rhT+u; tl;lk;, 79, GJg;gl;bdk; fpuhkk;, thh;L 6, gpshf; 4, kfu;Nehk;Gr;rhtb uhkrhkpNgl;ilj; njU gioa T.S.No.49 f;F, Gjpa T.S.No.49/1 y; fpuhk rpl;lhtpy; jw;NghJ cs;s 11860 rJu mb KOgug;Gk; fpua Mtz vz;. 3153/1975 ehs;. 23.08.1975 d;gb N]f;jhT+J rhaG Fkhuh; n[a;Dyhg;jPd; rhaG vd;gtuplkpUe;J E.N.KfkJ ,g;uhfpk;
kidtp `gpg;gPtp mk;khs; fpuak; ngw;W
cs;sgbAk; G+u;tPfkhf mDNghf
ghj;jpagbAk; Nkw;gbahUf;F nrhe;jkhd
Nkw;gb kidia jdJ kfd; M.mg;Jy;urPJ
j/ ng E.N.KfkJ ,g;uhfpk; vd;gtUf;F
nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtz vz;.2335/1986 ehs;
20.10.1986 d;gb nrl;by;nkz;l; Nkw;gb
8/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019
Mtzk; kfu;Nehk;Gr;rhtb rhu;gjpthsu;
mYtyfj;jpy; gjpT nra;Js;sgb Nkw;gb
Mtzj;jpd;gbAk; G+u;tPf mDNghf
ghj;jpag;gbAk; Nkw;gb M.mg;Jy;urPJ
vd;gtUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;L efu;Gw epytup
jpl;lj;jpd; fPo; tuptpjpg;G vz;.2/92 d; gbAk;
Nkw;gb T.S.No.49/1 y; cs;s KOtp];jPuz kidf;Fk; ghj;jpag;gl;l Nkw;gb M.mg;Jy;urPJ j/ ng E.N.KfkJ ,g;uhfpk; ngaiu gl;lh vz;.1514 y; jhf;fy; nra;Jk;, Nkw;gb gl;lhtpd; Mjpgl;lhjhuh; ngaiu ePf;fk; nra;Jk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.”
12. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that it is clear from the statement of one Mythili, who was Assistant in the B8 Section of Taluk Office, Thanjavur, during the period 03.05.2010 to 16.03.2011 had categorically stated that the order has been passed by the 1st petitioner on the recommendation of the 2nd petitioner and from the Personal Register S.No.1125, dated 02.02.2011, the file pertaining to the above order, bjh/K/g.kh/No. 1118/2011/M.8, dated 03.02.2011, has not been closed and during her tenure, the file was not sent to Record Section, despite as per Office Order, the file has to be sent to Record Section within 7 days. 9/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 Further, when she was on transfer, she was unable to handover the file, since the 1st petitioner had not rounded off, closed and handed back the file to her, hence, the file was with the first petitioner.
13. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the other witness Jaya Gandhi confirms the statement of Mythili that the file was not handed over and the file was with first petitioner. The Statement of R.Gurumoorthy, Tahsildar of Thanjavur, in his statement states that as, per Document No.3153/1975, the third accused had purchased only 7,848 sq.ft in the said survey number and when A3 had purchased the property, he cannot make a claim that the entire 12,635 sq.ft was with him, as inherited property, which on the face of it expose the false claim made by A3. Further, based on the Urban Land Tax alone patta cannot be granted. As per the village account and Municipality records Town Survey Land Register, the name of the Pattadar is mentioned as Sulaiman Sahif, hence, the name of Sulaiman Sahif cannot be deleted without any notice to the said Sulaiman Sahif and no enquiry in this aspect had been conducted. Further, he states that on verification of Personal Register it reveals that file had not been sent to Record Section and now the files are not available.
10/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019
14. The witness Abdul Lathif, the Deputy Collector had categorically in his statement states that based on the collection of ULT alone patta cannot be transferred. Further, from the statement of witness Nazar, criminal misconduct and receipt of illegal gratification received by the petitioner is proved. The Additional Superintendent of Police V&AC Rathinavel in his statement had states about collection of documents and recording the statement of witnesses about the complicity of the petitioners in commission of the above offence. Further, sanction has been obtained in this case against both the petitioners. The Sanctioning Authority, on careful consideration of the materials placed before him, had accorded sanction, which cannot be questioned now.
15. He would further submit that the petitioners had earlier filed a discharge petition before the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1548 of 2019, and raised all these points there. The trial Court, after consideration of the points raised, had dismissed the discharge petition of the petitioners, by a detailed order, dated 25.02.2019. Thereafter, no Revision had been filed against the dismissal order. From the above petition, it is seen that the points raised by the petitioners are with regard to the findings of the trial Judge in dismissing the discharge petition, since there is time bar in filing 11/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 the Revision, on the same averments, the quash petition had been filed on 06.12.2019, without any fresh materials or fresh grounds. It is submitted that the Land Grabbing Cell had not registered any case against the accused, it was only petition enquiry, which was closed. In view of no case being registered, there is no bar or any illegality in the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cell to register the case and conducting investigation against the accused. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted and the quash petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
16.The Court heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
17. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials it is seen that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners both by way of statements and documents. Further it is also well settled that when petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of Code, seeking for quashing of charge framed against them, the Court could not interfere with the order of trial Court, unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of process a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed, at this stage, this Court is required to consider the record of the case and the documents 12/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 submitted herein. Further, one of the important fact that the file pertaining to the issuance of the disputed patta is missing / not available. Tampering and creating of forgery documents, statutory and governments, are offences of serious in nature. On the facts and ingredients of Section, this Court feels that there are grounds to proceed against the accused they are charged of. This Court finds that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that there are prima facie case against the petitioners, the quash petition is dismissed.
05.02.2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MPK
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate /
The Special Judge,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam,
2. The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thanjavur.
3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Record Clerk Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
13/14 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP(MD)No.19213 of 2019 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
MPK PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19213 of 2019 05.02.2020 14/14 http://www.judis.nic.in