Madras High Court
K.Packiaraman vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 November, 2017
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 12.07.2022
PRONOUNCED ON: 17.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.11063 and 11064 of 2019
K.Packiaraman : Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
C.C.B.(Anti Land Grabbing Spl.Cell),
Madurai.
(Crime No.55 of 2017). : 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. C.Sheela :2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C,
to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.25 of 2019, on
the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases,
Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Tamil Mani
for Mr.M.Veilkani Raju
For Respondents : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R.1
: Mr.V.Pandian
for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.25 of 2019, pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive trial of Land Grabbing cases, Madurai and quash the same.
2. The petitioner is the fifth accused in C.C.No.25 of 2019, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive trial of Land Grabbing cases, Madurai. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, F.I.R. came to be registered in Cr.No.55 of 2017 on 23.06.2017 against eight persons for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 471 and 120(b) I.P.C. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has laid the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dated 27.11.2017 against five persons including the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 467, 468, 406 and 420 I.P.C., and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.25 of 2019 and the same is pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive trial of Land Grabbing cases, Madurai.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant has purchased two properties at Ponmeni Village, Madurai South https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 Taluk, vide document Nos.4613 and 4614 of 1994 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property, that the second respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as hand loan from her husband's friend Manoharan – first accused, for which, the second respondent had given the original sale deeds as security, that the hand loan was settled by the second respondent within two months, that since the second respondent with her husband moved to her native place due to nature of work allotted to her husband, they made a request to the first accused to take care of the property and to see the prosperous buyers to sell the said property, that the original sale deeds which were handed over to the first accused were not returned to the second respondent, that the first accused within three months, in collusion with the third accused Subramani had created a power of attorney deed, dated 07.03.1995 as if the same was executed by the second respondent in favour of the first accused, that thereafter they have also created two sale deeds dated 19.05.1995 as if the second respondent had executed two sale deeds in favour of the second accused Vadivammal, that the accused 1 and 3 had subscribed their signatures as witnesses to the said documents, that the second accused has then executed a Will dated 23.06.1995, in favour of her daughter-in-law Malaimani – fourth accused, that the fourth accused had executed a power of attorney deed dated 09.12.2002 in favour of one Balu @ Baluchamy, that the petitioner/fifth accused had subscribed his signature as a witness to the said power deed, that subsequently they had sold the property to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 third parties and thereby they had obtained unlawful gain, that all the accused had conspired together and impersonated the second respondent and forged her signatures and fabricated the documents and that thereby they had committed the offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 467, 468, 406 and 420 I.P.C.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent has laid the final report without considering the fact that the very same complaint, which was given by the second respondent dated 26.02.2016 was closed as no offence was made out, that there is no criminal overt act attributed against the petitioner, that there are no allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint given by the second respondent, that the first respondent, without considering the fact that the petitioner is only an attesting witness in the power deed executed by the deceased fourth accused, had implicated him in the final report, that the first respondent has filed the impugned charge sheet by excluding the accused 5 to 8 shown in the F.I.R., without assigning any reason and that the first respondent has included the name of the petitioner in the charge sheet, though his name does not find place in the F.I.R.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the second accused Vadivammal had purchased the property on 19.05.1995 and she https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 executed a Will dated 23.06.1995 in favour of the fourth accused, that since the testator of the Will had died on 03.02.2001, the Will came into force, that the fourth accused executed a power deed dated 09.12.2002 and that since the first accused Manoharan had died in the year 1997 itself, the question of invoking Section 120(b) I.P.C., does not arise at all. The learned Counsel would further submit that the second respondent did not say anywhere that the petitioner and the accused 2 and 4 are known to him, that the petitioner was not at all involved in any cheating or impersonation and he had only subscribed his signature as attesting witness in the power deed and that the petitioner has not committed any fraud, nor used fraudulently or dishonestly any document as genuine which he knows or has reason to believe the forged document.
6. It is not in dispute that the second respondent has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.632 of 2018 and the same is pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai. The main contention of the second respondent is that after coming to know about the death of the first accused, the second respondent approached the wife of the first accused and asked her to return the original sale deeds dated 03.11.1994, that the first accused's wife informed that she was not aware of the transaction took place between the second respondent and her husband and assured that she will take sincere efforts to trace out the missing documents and will hand over the same, if they are found, that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 second respondent hoped that the first accused's wife would hand over the missing documents as and when she traced out the same, but there was no response from her, that when the second respondent came to the property in question in the second week of February 2016, she was shocked to notice that some constructions were going on, that the second respondent immediately applied for encumbrance certificate and came to know that two sale deeds were created as if the same were executed by the second respondent, that the second respondent came to know that the accused have created the sale deeds by impersonation and by forging the signature and thumb impression of the second respondent and that the second respondent came to know that the first accused along with the third accused Subramani had created forged documents and they had sold the property to the second accused, as if the second respondent has sold the property.
7. It is the further case of the second respondent, that the second accused had then executed a Will dated 23.06.1995 in favour of her daughter viz., the fourth accused, who in turn executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Balu @ Baluchamy who in turn executed a sale deed in favour of one Vijayalakshmi on 30.10.2003 and two other sale deeds on 26.02.2004 to his son and wife, that the said Baluchamy has again executed another sale deed dated 17.05.2004 to one Rajendran and his wife Pothumani jointly and that thereafter https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 the said Baluchamy had executed a settlement deed on 19.01.2015 in favour of his son, which are all illegal.
8. The learned Counsel for the second respondent would further submit that the forged sale deeds dated 19.05.1995 said to have been created in favour of the second accused are null and void and they were also not supported by any consideration and that the same are not binding on the second respondent.
9. It is pertinent to note that the second accused in whose favour the sale deeds were allegedly executed is none other than the mother of the present petitioner and the fourth accused, in whose favour the Will was executed by the second accused, is none other than the wife of the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second respondent, the second accused Vadivammal, after getting the sale deeds on 19.05.1995 had allegedly executed the Will in favour of the petitioner's wife on 23.06.1995, ie., within 33 days.
10. The learned Counsel for the second respondent would further submit that the second respondent has previously lodged the complaint in the Registration Department, who in turn made a request to the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Madurai, dated 29.04.2016 to conduct enquiry, that the connected registered documents with finger print records were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 sent for taking appropriate action and the Anti-Land Grabbing Special cell has sent all documents to the finger print and forensic department, Madurai, that the Single Digit Finger Print Bureau, Madurai has sent a report dated 10.06.2016 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell stating that the signatures and thumb impression found in the disputed documents and the admitted signatures and thumb impression of the second respondent are different, that since the Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, Madurai, even after receiving the said report, has not taken any action, the second respondent was constrained to file a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5452 of 2017 before this Court seeking direction to the Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell authorities to take appropriate action on the basis of the report and that this Court directed the second respondent to work out her remedies in the manner known to law, vide order dated 06.06.2017. Subsequently, the Madurai City CCB Police Station registered the F.I.R., in Cr.No.55 of 2017, on 23.06.2017.
11. The learned Counsel for the second respondent would further submit that the second accused Vadivammal has no source of income nor having any independent income or sufficient means to purchase the property, as she was aged about 80 years at that time and was depending upon the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is a retired City Civil Engineer in Madurai Corporation and during his employment, in order to escape from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 liability, he clandestinely created a sale deed in his mother's name and within a month he created a sale deed in his wife's name.
12. No doubt, the second respondent's earlier complaint given to the Anti- Land Grabbing Cell was closed on 27.03.2017. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, after conducting elaborate enquiry and after receiving the forensic lab report, has specifically observed that no offence relating to land grabbing was committed and directed the parties to approach the civil Court to sort out their disputes and that the respondent police without considering the closure of the earlier complaint has exceeded their jurisdiction and filed the final report.
13. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent, the closure of the earlier complaint by itself cannot be considered as a reason or ground to quash the subsequent F.I.R., or charge sheet, which is laid on the basis of the subsequent complaint.
14. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs The State Of Maharashtra reported in 2019(18) SCC 191, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has specifically held that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule and that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in Section itself. It is also settled law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings.
15. It is pertinent to note that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into truth or otherwise of allegations made in the complaint or delve into the disputed question of facts. A perusal of F.I.R., statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., and the status report filed by the first respondent makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and three appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
16. In the above circumstances, I do not find any justification to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner, as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognised by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which may justify their quashing. Consequently, this Court concludes that the above Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019
17. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
17.08.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SSL Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1. The Inspector of Police, C.C.B.(Anti Land Grabbing Spl.Cell), Madurai.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
SSL Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18821 of 2019 17.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12