Madras High Court
M.Vinoth Kannan vs The State Represented By on 26 September, 2018
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.09.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6847 of 2016 M.Vinoth Kannan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Theni District. (Crime No.54 of 2014). ... Respondent/Complainant 2.C.J.Hemanth 3.Vasantha Jeyakaran 4.Sivasami 5.Abdul Ajees 6.Parthasarathi @ Vijayasarathi 7.P.Sundara Rajan ... Respondents/Accused PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni in Crime No.54 of 2014 on the file of the respondent No.1, dated 09.12.2014. !For Petitioner :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondents :Mrs.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R.1 : Mr.A.K.Manickam for R.2 to R.4 : Mr.R.Subramanian for R.5 :ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni dismissing the protest petition filed by the petitioner against the closure report filed by the respondent police in Cr.No.54 of 2014.
2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner claims to be a power agent of the legal heirs of Late Kamatchi Chettiar. He claims to be power agent based on the power of attorney executed in his favour on 30.10.2013. Subsequent to the execution of power of attorney document, the petitioner applied for encumbrance certificate in the year 2014 with regard to the subject property and found that the accused persons have dealt with the property by impersonating the said Kamatchi Chettiar and have executed a power attorney dated 20.03.1998, a sale deed dated 28.06.2001 and thereafter an exchange deed dated 27.11.2008.
3. Therefore a complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the respondent police and the same was taken on file and First Information Report was registered in Cr.No.54 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 468, 419, 406, 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. The respondent police, after investigation, filed a closure report on 17.11.2015. It will be relevant to extract the reasons given by the respondent police for the purpose of filing the closure report:
? tHf;fpd; thjpahdth; mtUf;F b$duy; gth; bfhLj;Js;s egh;fis tprhuizf;F M$h;gLj;jhky; tHf;fpid jpir jpUg;g[k; bghUl;L> fhty; Jiwapdh; nky; g[fhh; mspj;J tUtij tHf;fkhf itj;Js;shh;. njdp khtl;l Fw;wg;gphptpy; bfhLf;fg;gl;l mnj g[fhhpid fle;j 2012-y; njdp khtl;l fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsh; mth;fsplk; bfhLj;J> nkw;go kDthdJ> njdp khtl;l epymgfhpg;g[ jLg;g[ rpwg;g[ gphptpd; kD vz;.482/2012 Mf tprhuizapy; ,Ue;j nghJk;> thjp b$duy; gth; bfhLj;j egh;fis tprhuizf;F M$h;gLj;jhky; ,Ue;J te;jjhy;> nkw;go kDtpd; nky; rptpy; ePjpkd;wk; K:yk; eltof;if vLf;fr; brhy;yp kD tprhuiz Kof;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. tHf;fpd; thjpf;F b$duy; gth; bfhLj;j egh;fis tprhuizf;F M$h;gLj;jpdhy; kl;Lnk thjp jug;g[ Mtzq;fspd; cz;ik jd;ikiaa[k;> jhth brhj;jhdJ ahUf;F vt;tHpapy; chpikg;gl;lJ vd;gija[k; mwpa ,aYk;. jhth brhj;jpd; chpikahsuhf g[fhhpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s fhkhl;rp brl;oahh; vd;gthpd; thhpRfs; ahh; ahh; vd;gJ gw;wp ve;jtpjkhd Mtzq;fSk; ,y;yhjgl;rj;jpy;> nkw;go tHf;F rk;ke;jkhf ve;jtpjkhd nky;eltof;ifa[k; vLf;f ,ayhJ. ,t;tHf;fpd; thjp rhl;rpfisa[k;> thhpR rhd;wpida[k;> tprhuizf;F M$h;gLj;Jk; gl;rj;jpy; kPz;Lk; tHf;F g[yd;tprhuizf;F vLj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLk;. mJtiu ,e;j tHf;fpid g[yd;tprhuizapy; itj;jpUg;gjpy; ve;jtpjkhd gaDk; ,y;yhjjhy;> ,e;j tHf;fpd; nky; eltof;if epWj;jk; bra;J> thjpf;F Rc's No.19/15-d; gpufhuk; jiyik fhtyh; 1534> jpU.uhkK:h;j;jp vd;gt; K:yk; rhh;g[ bra;a brd;w nghJ> thjpapd; tPL g{l;lg;gl;oUe;jjhy;> jpk;kurehaf;fD}h; gpl;-II fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; mKjh> fpuhk cjtpahsh; ghy;ghz;o Mfpanahh;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; itj;J Rc's Notice-I thjpapd; tPl;od; fjtpy; xl;lg;gl;L> ,t;tHf;fpd; nky; eltof;ifia epWj;jk; bra;J (Action Dropped) vd ,Wjp mwpf;if rkh;g;gpf;fpnwd;.?
4. It is clear from the final report that the respondent police had closed the case mainly based on the fact that the petitioner was only a power agent and the original owners of the property and other witnesses were not available at the time of investigation and therefore, the police was not able to proceed further in this case. The respondent police had made it clear even in the final report that if in case the original owners of the property proceed further with the case and furnish sufficient evidence before the respondent police, the case will be revived.
5. Even thereafter the original owners did not prosecute the case. It is seen from the record that the petitioner who is a power of attorney agent has chosen to file a protest petition before the Court below against the closure report. The Court below, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, by an order dated 10.03.2016, had dismissed the protest petition on the ground that the Investigating Officer had given sufficient reasons for filing an action dropped report and there is no ground to interfere with the same. This order has now been made the subject matter of challenge in this Criminal Original Petition.
6. The sum and substance of the case is with regard to the impersonation and creation of the documents with regard to the property which is said to belong to one Kamatchi Chettiar. The said Kamatchi Chettiar had died in the year 1975. The legal heirs of the said Kamatchi Chettiar seem to have executed a power of attorney document in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner as an agent has proceeded to file the above complaint against the accused persons for creating false documents and also on the ground of impersonation. The police in the course of investigation wanted to examine the original owners of the property. That apart, the police also wanted to examine as to whether the persons claiming themselves to be the legal heirs are really the legal heirs of the said Kamatchi Chettiar. The respondent police did not have an opportunity to examine this fundamental detail during the course of investigation, since the legal heirs did not present themselves before the respondent police. Therefore, the respondent police had no other option except to file a closure report as action dropped. Even subsequent to the action dropped report, it is only the agent who is prosecuting the case and the original owners who claim themselves to the legal heirs of Kamatchi Chettiar are not coming into the picture. Therefore, the Court below was right in dismissing the protest petition filed by the petitioner by accepting the reasons given by the respondent police to file a report as action dropped. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
7. It is clearly seen from the action dropped report filed by the respondent police that if the original owners of the property make out an appropriate complaint before the respondent police and also produce sufficient evidence in order to substantiate their grievance with regard to the impersonation and creation of false documents, the respondent police is prepared to further investigate this case. Till the same is done, the petitioner cannot proceed further in this case in his capacity as an agent, more particularly, since the specific allegation revolves around impersonation and creation of false documents.
8. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondent police to revive the investigation if in case the original owners of the property give a formal complaint before the police and subject themselves to investigation by giving necessary evidence against the accused persons.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni.
2. The Inspector of Police, Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.