Madras High Court
M.K.Alagiri vs State Represented By on 8 September, 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI. DATED: 08.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.KIRUBAKARAN CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 16423 of 2014 M.K.Alagiri .. Petitioner Versus 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Madurai. 2.The Executive Officer, R.Jayaraman, son of Raman, 39/11, Arulmighu Vinayagar Thirukoil, Sivarakkottai, Thirumangalam Division, Madurai District. .. Respondents PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records culminating in FIR No.40 of 2014 dated 27.08.2014 on the file of the first respondent, District Crime Branch, Madurai District and quash the same. !For Petitioner :Mr.C.A.Dhiwahar For Respondents :Mr.Shanmugavelayutham Public Prosecutor :ORDER
It is an attempt by the petitioner to nip the FIR in the bud itself and that is the reason why he has come before this Court for quashing the F.I.R within one week from the date of registration in Crime No.40 of 2014 under Section 468, 471,420, 120B of IPC.
2. The petitioner contents that he is the Founder Trustee of the Public Charitable Trust called M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust. It is alleged that the trust has been established for propagating and disseminating education among the various sections of the society. The Trust has purchased the land in Sivarakkottai for establishing Educational Institution measuring about 44 cents comprised in R.S.No.175/2013 in Sivarakkottai from one Mr.S.Sampathkumar through sale deed dated 10.1.2011. The land originally belonged to Ramasamy Pandaram and Veluchamy Pandaram. The said property was one of the several properties forming the subject matter of declaratory suit in O.S.No.711 of 1979 filed by Veluchamy Pandaram against his brother Ramasamy Pandaram before the District Munsif, Thirumangalam. The suit was decreed on 05.04.1983 and the same was upheld in A.S.No.208 of 1981 on 05.04.1983. Ramasamy Pandaram and Veluchamy Pandaram exchanged an extent of 44 cents comprised in R.S.No.175 of 2013 in lieu of one acre three cents comprised in R.S.No.1777/16 under a deed of Exchange dated 30.6.2008 registered as document No.6199 of 2008. Through very next document No.6220/2008 dated 30.6.2008, Aathilakshmi in turn sold 44 cents to Mr.Sampathkumar by a sale deed dated 2.2.2011.
3. The Trust purchased the aforesaid 44 cents from Sampathkumar and constructed an Engineering College in Sivarakottai with a larger extent of land located little away from the aforesaid 44 cents. The College got permission to admit students from the Hon?ble Supreme Court by order dated 14.08.2014. The Hon?ble Supreme Court by the very same order dated 14.08.2014 permitted the respondents in S.L.P. to examine the veracity of the objections stated in paragraph 4.9 of the order, refusing affiliation and to file a report before the Hon?ble Supreme Court on 25.08.2014, in case of serious deficiency on the part of the College. Meanwhile the college started functioning. The respondents in SLP took further two weeks? time to report before the Hon?ble Supreme Court.
4. The writ petition was filed by the Trust seeking affiliation was pending orders in June 2014, the third respondent due to political reason, accused the petitioner of grabbing 44 cents of temple land for the College. The Officials of the HR & CE Department trespassed into 44 cents of land and illegally fenced. The Trust filed a suit in O.S.No.512 of 2014 on 30.6.2014 before the Sub-Court, Thirumangalam for declaration and permanent injunction. After receipt of notice in O.S.No.512 of 2014, counter suit O.S.No.577 of 2014, through the second respondent was filed seeking declaration of exchange deed and subsequent sale deed as null and void and for permanent injunction against the petitioner Trust and 4 others. The said suit and other interim applications are pending before the Sub-Court, Thirumangalam.
5. When things stand so, to influence and inference in the adjudication of the proceedings before the Hon?ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.21901 of 2014 and in the civil suits which are pending before the Sub-Court, Thirumangalam, the first respondent registered the FIR No.40/2014 on 27.08.2014. The said FIR is being challenged before this Court.
6. Mr.C.A.Dhiwakar, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Seetaraman, counsel for the petitioner would make the following submissions:
a) Ryathwari patta was granted in favour of Ramasami Pandaram and Veluchami Pandaram under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Minor (Inams Abolition and Conversion) Act 30 of 1963 and they have got right to exchange the property.
b) Section 41(1) of HR & CE Act, does not prohibit exchange of Ryothwari patta land and it cannot be illegal. To put it otherwise Section 41(1) of the HR & CE Act grants permission for exchange.
c) There is no criminal offence, as the property is exchanged for a period of five years as per Section 41 of the HR & CE Act and therefore, there is no illegality in the exchange.
He relied upon the following judgement of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Peddintivenkata Murali Ranganatha Desika Iyenkar and others vs. State of A.P. and another reported in (1996) 3 SCC 75.
d) The decree and judgement passed in O.S.No.711 of 1979 clearly declared the title of Veluchamy Pandaram over the 44 cents and other properties, as his self acquired properties. Already second respondent filed O.S.No.577 of 2014 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, with regard to the same property, seeking declaration that the exchange deed and subsequent sale deeds are null and void and for permanent injunction and therefore, Criminal Jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
e) The very basis of the suit filed by the second respondent in O.S.No.512 of 2014 is that there is a violation of Section 41 of HR& CE Act while executing the exchange deed and sale deeds and there is no whisper about the criminal intention or allegation of land grabbing either against the petitioner or against the vendors.
f) The communication dated 25.01.2006 of the HR & CE Department prohibiting transfer of the temple properties does not include the subject property and hence there is no prohibition for exchanging the same.
g) When the Government is already in possession, there cannot be any land grabbing.
h) The allegation in FIR are very vague and no criminal offence is made out.
i) Filing of complaint is malafide, tainted with political reasons and the timing of the complaint would prove that it has been deliberately given to prevent the petitioner from getting favourable orders from the Hon?ble Supreme Court.
j) There is a delay on the part of the respondent to file the complaint.
k) If the subject property is temple property, it would be given back immediately. The following judgements were relied upon by the petitioner.
1) 2010 8 SCC 775 (Kishan Singh (dead) Through LRs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors)
2) 2009 1 SCC 516 z(R.Kalyani v. Janak C.Mehta and others)
3) 2012 1 SCC 520 (Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council)
4) 2010 1 SCC 322 (Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P. and another)
5) 2011 7 SCC 59 (Joseph Saivaraja v. State of Gujarat and others)
6) 1992 Suppl 1 SCC 335 (State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and others)
7) AIR 1963 SC 1572 (Dr.Vimla V. Delhi Admn.) Making the above submissions the learned counsel, seeks quashing of the FIR.
7. Mr.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor would contend as follows:
i) Ryothwari patta dated 04.08.1969 in respect of the property was issued to the temple alone.
ii) The HR & CE Department took over the temple on 31.01.1974.
iii) The Temple property patta No.1597 (S.No.175 of 2013) was not given in the exchange deed and in the subsequent sale deeds. Whereas, wrong patta No.1270 which relates to property of one Sathish was deliberately given.
iv) There are no boundaries mentioned in the exchange deed dated 30.6.2008.
v) The exchange deed dated 30.06.2008 executed by Ramasamy Pandaram and Veluchamy Pandaram in favour of Aadhilakshmi in lieu of 44 cents of temple land and the sale deed ated 30.06.2008 in favour of Sampathkumar, the vendor of the petitioner, are continuous documents.
vi) Through A2-Sampathkumar only, the petitioner has been getting lands right from 3.10.2008 onwards and there are about six sale deeds executed by the said Sampathkumar-A2 in favour of the petitioner-A1. Therefore, the petitioner cannot plead ignorance and it is only criminal conspiracy.
vii) Merely because civil proceedings have been initiated, there is no bar for initiating criminal proceedings.
viii)The delay cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR and there is no limitation for criminal prosecution.
The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the following judgements.
1) 2014 3 SCC 389 (Vijayander Kumar and others -vs.State of Rajasthan and others)
2) 2001 8 SCC 645 (M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and another)
8. In reply, Mr.C.A.Dhiwakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even today patta number of the property is 1270 and not 1597 as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor. That apart, in paragraph -11 of the written statement filed in O.S.No.512 of 2014 filed by the petitioner, the second respondent HR & CE Department stated that the petitioner is not in possession of the property. Hence, there cannot be land grabbing.
9. Heard the parties and perused the records carefully.
10. As far as factual aspects are concerned, there is no dispute. The dispute whether the property measuring about 44 cents comprised in S.No.175 of 2013 in Sivarakkottai is a temple land and whether the temple property has been grabbed by the petitioner by criminal conspiracy with the other accused is the subject matter of FIR.
11. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the land belonging to the Vinayakar Temple Sivarakkottai was fraudulently grabbed by criminal conspiracy by the petitioner along with the other accused. The following are the allegations found in the FIR:
?nkw;go rptuf;nfhl;il fpuhkj;jpy; rh;nt vz; 175-13y; 44 brd;l; e?;ir epyk; tpdhafh; jpUnfhtpYf;F?ghj;jpag;gl;l epyk; MFk;/ ,j;;jpUf;nfhtpy;; epyj;jpw;f;F mUfpy; jah ,d;$[Pdpahp';; fy;Y}hp cs;sJ/ fle;j 4/8/1969 md;W kJiu brl;oy;; bkz;l; jhrpy;jhh; (ikdh;; ,dhk;) myF vz;/1 mth;fs;fshy;; m-kp tpdhafh; Rthkp bgaUf;F uaj;Jthhp gl;lh tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ rptuf;nfhl;il fpuhkj;ij rhh;e;j uhkrhkp gz;lhuk; kw;Wk; ntYrhkp gz;lhuk;; Mfpnahh;fs;; nkw;go nfhtpypd; gz;lhhpfshf ntiy ghh;j;J te;J cs;sdh;;/ nkw;go nfhtpy; g{rhhpfshf ntiy ghh;;jJ te;Js;sdh;;; nkw;go hhkrhkp gz;lhuk; ;;;;;;;n;tYrhkp gz;lhuk; ;;rptuf;nfhl;il fpuhkj;ij nrh;e;j uhkrhkp ft[z;lh; kidtp Mjpbyl;Rkp; (taJ?50) kJiuia rhh;e;j nrJuhkd; kfd; v!;/rk;gj;;Fkhh; (taJ 45) K/f/ mHfpwp fy;tp mwffl;lisapd; epWtdUk;. jiytUkhd K/f/mHfphp Mfpnahh;fs; Tl;lhf rjp bra;J nkw;go tpdhafh; jpUnfhtp;Yf;F ghj;jpag;gl;ll 44 brd;l; epyj;ij mgfhp;j;J bfhs;s ntz;Lk; vd;fpw vz;zj;jpy; nkw;go 44 brd;l; epyk; jpUnfhtpYf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd bjh;pe;J bfhz;nl nkhroahf fPH;fz;lthU ghpth;j;jid kw;Wk; fpiua Mtz';fis jpUk';fyk; rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;J cs;ssdh;/ fle;e 30/6/2008 md;W nkw;go uhkrhkp gz;lhuKk; ntYrhkp ;gz;lhuKk;; tpdhafh; jpUnfhtpYf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 44 brd;l; epyj;ij rptuf;nfhl;il fpuhkj;ij nrh;e;;j uhkrhkp ft[z;lh; kidtp Mjpbyl;Rkp vd;gtUf;F Mtz vz; 6199-2008 K:yk; ghpth;j;jid gj;j;pu;k; K:yk; jpUk';fyk; rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; nkhroahf gjpt[[ bra;J cs;sdh;/ mnj njjpapy;; Mjpbyl;Rkp vd;gth; 30/6/2008 md;nw kJiu 16. SBOA fhyzp 2tJ bjU. fjt[[ vz; 23y; cs;s tPl;oy; trpf;Fk;?vk;/nrJuhkd; kfd; rk;gj;Fkhh; vd;gtUf;F Mtzk; vz;; 6200-2008 :K:yk; bfhLj;J cs;shh;/ mjd; gpd;dh;; nkw;go v!;/rk;gj;Fkhh; vd;gth; 10/1/2001 md;W kJiu?3 25. rj;jparha; efh; Kfthpap;y; ;K/f/mHfphp vd;gtUf;F :Mtzk; vz;/1121- 2011 fpiua Mtzk; :K:yk;; fpiua gj;jpuk; ;vGjp gjpt[ bra;J bfhLj;Js;shh;;/ nkw;go egh;;fspd; epymgfhpg;g[ kw;Wk; nkhroeltof;iffSf;F kJiu?16. 38. nkybghd;dfuk;. 7tJ bjU. tpyhrj;jpy; trpj;J tUk; bry;iyah kfd; nrJuhkd; ;vd;gtUk; ;kJiu?1 fPuj;Jiu?12 ntjg;gps;is bjU tpyhrj;jpy; trpj;J tUk; FUrhkp kfd; G. rjP!;Fkhh; vd;gtUk; cle;ijahf bray;gl;L K/f/ mHfphp fpiuak; bgw;Ws;s fpiua gj;jpuj;jpy; rhl;rp; ifbaGj;J nghl;L cs;sdh;/@ The above allegations are prima facie materials against the accused. The allegations are that the property belonging to the temple with fradulently grabbing by the accused through the exchange deed, sale deeds by criminal conspiracy and therefore they cannot be stated to be very vague. Therefore, the contention regarding vagueness of the allegations is not sustainable.
12. A perusal of the records would undoubtedly make it very clear as stated above, Vinayagar Temple was given Ryotwari patta as early as on 4.8.1969. Therefore, Ryothwari patta holder of the land is Vinayagar Temple only. It is not in dispute that there is a decree and judgement in O.S.No.711 of 1979 obtained by Veluchamy against Ramasamy in respect of many properties including the present property. In the said proceedings, the HR & CE authorities were not parties and therefore, the said decree shall not bind the second respondent.
13. The Proceedings dated 31.1.1974 issued by the HR & CE authorities would denote that the Administration of the temple was taken over by the HR & CE Authority. In the suit proceedings itself it is stated that the temple is the ryothwari patta holder of the subject property. Therefore, it is clear that the temple is the Ryotwari patta holder of the subject property.
14. When the temple is the ryothwari patta holder of the land, it has been falsely stated in page 2 of the exchange deed dated 30.06.2008 executed by Ramasamy Pandaram and Veluchamy Pandaram that the properties are their ancestral properties. That apart, the exchange deed dated 30.06.2008 was registered as document No.6199 of 2008 and by very next document No.6200 of 2008, Mrs.Aathilakshmi-A3, who got the property by way of exchange deed (Doc.No.6199/2008), conveyed the subject property in favour of A2 Sampathkumar on the very same day viz. 30.06.2008. The execution of exchange deed by Ramasamy Pandaram and another in favour of A3- Aadilakshi and the sale deed in favour of A2 Sampathkumar on the very same day through continous documents are suspicious transactions which need to be investigated.
15. Though it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that A2-Sampathkumar got sale deed as early as on 30.06.2008, he executed the sale deed in favour of A1 only on 10.01.2011, it is contended by the prosecution that the investigation so far done reveals that A2 Sampathkumar is not a stranger to A1 and A2 has been executing the sale deeds right from 2008 onwards to A1 as an Agent of A1. Paragraph H of the objection filed by the first respondent is given the details and they are extracted as follows:
? h) Investigation reveals that Tr.Sampathkumar arrayed as A2 has obtained power deed from various owners of land in Sivarakottai villagae and transferred the land to M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust.The list of transactions made by A2 in favour of M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust founded by A1 is detailed below:
S.No Sivarakottai Village Survey numbers Document number. Date of registration Executants Name of claimants 1 169/4B,12A,12B,13,170/1A, 1C, 171/13,13C, 172/8 9721/2008 dated 3.10.2008 Sampathkumar M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust 2 172/1,2,10,11B,14A,13 173/13,14, 174/1,6, 175/1, 6B 1120/2011 dated 10.01.2011 Sampathkumar M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust 3 175/15A, 15B, 15C,176/2,3,1A,1B 177/1,7,8,9,13,14 1118/2011 dated 10.01.2011 Sampathkumar M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust 4 175/4A, 4B,6A,7,8,10,11,12,12B 1199/2011 dated 10.01.2011 Sampathkumar M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust 5 175/3 1121/2011 dated 10.01.2011 Sampathkumar M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust 6 175/4A to 175/12B 1119/2011 dated 10.01.2011 Sampathkumar M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust
16. If the allegations in the complaint make out offences this court cannot have jurisdiction to quash the proceedings as held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in State of Maharastra vs. Iswar Piraji Kalpatri and others reported in (1996) 1 SCC 542. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NFPC India Limited and others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that neither a detaild enquiry nor meticulous analysis of the material called for assessment of reliability or genuineness of the allegation in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of complaint.
17. In Ravindrakumar Madhanlal Goenka and another Rugminiraghav Spinners Private Limited reported in (2009) 11 SCC 529, the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that if there are prima facie materials are available, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings, cannot be entertained and the investigating agency should have permitted to go into whole gamut and to reach conclusion of its own. In this case, this court finds prima facie materials available against the accused and therefore, FIR cannot be quashed.
18. There is no doubt that there are civil suits by the petitioner as well as the by the second respondent and they are pending before the civil courts. Pending of civil suits itself cannot be a ground to quash the FIR as held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in M.Krishnan vs. Vijayasingh and another reported in (2001) 8 SCC 645.
19. Under Section 41(1) of the HR & CE Act permission for grant of lease or exchange etc, exceeding five years, has to be obtained. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no prohibition under Section 41(1) of the HR & CE Act to execute exchange deed. However, the contents of the exchange deed would show that the exchange deed is not for a limited period of five years. More over, the executors of the exchange deed dated 30.06.2008 A6 and A7 Ramasamy and Veluchamy declared that the property as ancestral property and not as a property of the temple. Therefore, the said contention is not sustainable.
20. The judgement relied upon by the learned counsel in Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2011 7 SCC 59 is concerned, the Hon?ble Supreme Court from the facts of that case found that the matter is civil in nature and no serious breach of trust was found. Therefore, the said judgement is not applicable to this case. In State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335, the Hon?ble Supreme Court gave categories of cases, where Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Only if the allegation made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in the entirety do not have prima facie materials, then, the FIR has to be quashed. Whereas in this case as stated above, there are prima facie materials available and it is a case for investigation.
21. It is evident that A2 Tr.Sampathkumar has acted as an agent of M.K.Alagilri Educational Trust founded by A1 M.K.Alagiri. He has purchased the lands in Sivarakkottai Village from various owners and transferred the same to M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust from 2008 to 2011. It is also submitted that the land in survey number 175/13 stood patta number 1597, in the name of ? Vinayagar Temple Sivarakottai?, which was located in between the lands purchased for M.K.Alagiri Trust. Hence with the view to grab the said temple land, A1 M.K.Alagiri conspired with A2 Sampathkumar and purchased the temple land in the presence of A4 Sethuraman, A5 Satheeshkumar, A6 Ramasamy, A7, Velusamy, through a exchange deed in favour of Aathilakshmi.?
22. In Kishan Singh (dead) through LRs vs. Gurpal Singh and others reported in 2010 8 SCC 775 case is concerned, where the party, who lost the civil suit after six years ago, filed the FIR based on the very same allegation of forgery as made in the earlier civil suit. Taking note of the aforesaid facts only the Hon?ble Supreme Court up held the High Court's Judgement quashing the FIR as an abuse of process of court. Therefore. it is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
23. In R.Kalyani Janak Mehta reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516 held the Apex Court that penal statute must receive strict construction and vicarious criminal liability was sought to be fastened for the affairs of the company. In that case, it was found that there was no interaction between the appellant and other accused and therefore, the court found that the question of any representation which is one of the main ingredients for constituting the offence of cheating could not arise and quashed the F.I.R. Whereas in this case, it is alleged that A2 Sampathkumar got the property on 30.06.2008 itself deed(Doc.No.6200/2008) after execution of Exchange Deed dated 30.06.2008 (Doc.No.6199/2008) in favour of A3 Aadhilakshmi. That apart A2 has been acting as agent for the A1 right from 2008 onwards. Therefore,the said judgement cannot be applied to the facts of the case. The Judgment in Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council and another 2012 1 SCC 520 is with regard to quashing of 138 proceedings against non executive director who resigned from the company for six years back. Therefore the said judgement is not applicable. In Parminder kaur vs. State of Uttarpradesh and another reported in 2010 1 SCC 322 the appellant therein was not gainer by tampering of certified copies of the revenue records to be used in civil suits. In the said case the appellant had not gained by tampering with the records and therefore quashed the proceedings. Whereas in this case, the first accused is said to be the gainer by the transaction.
24. As far as 1996 3 SCC 75 is concerned, it has been referred to by the petitioner to show that the Ryothwari patta creates vested rights over the property held either by the institution or individual to the extent of 2/3 and 1/3 respectively with absolute rights. For title and interest over the land, the tenant in occupation is also entitled to heritable occupants right and they are allowed to alienate, exchange etc. However, in the exchange deed dated 30.06.2008 Ramasamy and Veluchamy A6 and A7 did not state that the property as ryotwari land of the temple whereas they claimed the property as their ancestral property. Hence the said judgement is not useful to the petitioner.
25. As A6 and A7 Ramasamy Pandaram and Veluchamy Pandaram did not mention in the exchange deed dated 30.6.2008 that the property is the temple property. On the other hand they claimed as their ancestral property and therefore exemption Section 41(i) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act,1959 cannot be invoked by the petitioner. For the very same above reason, similar argument relying upon Minor and Inam Abolition and Coversion Act is also of no use. Therefore, there are prima facie materials which make out Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120b IPC, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property under Section 420 IPC, forgery for the purpose of cheating under Section 468 and using a forgery document as genuine document under Section 471 I.P.C.
26. Though it is contended that there is a delay in initiation of criminal proceedings, that itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. As soon as offences came to the knowledge of the complainant, immediately the case has been registered. Moreover Crime never dies. Though it is stated that the complaint has been filed only to prevent the petitioner from getting favourable order in SLP.No.21904/2014, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the second respondent is not a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Therefore, filing of the compliant cannot be connected with the SLP initiated by the petitioner.
27. When prima facie materials are available and make out offences, the investigating officer has to investigate and decide as to whether there was any offence committed by accused. All the contentions put forth by the petitioner before this Court have to be placed before the Investigating Officer, who will look into the same. The transactions are borne out by records. When everything is borne out by record, there cannot be any problem for the petitioner to point out the same during the investigation. The investigation is only in preliminary stage. Moreover the FIR was registered only on 27.08.2014 itself. It is too early to contend that the allegations in the FIR are very vague and it has been filed with political vendetta and malafide motive. There is nothing before this Court to prove that the prosecution is a malafide exercise. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation is only at threshold stage and the witnesses are being examined. Hence, it is too early to challenge the FIR. It is settled law that FIR is only a first information report to set criminal law in motion and FIR is not expected to contain all the material details. F.I.R is not an encyclopedia. The investigation alone would reveal the truth. Inherent power under Section 482, cannot be exercised at this stage and it should be sparingly used. This case is not fit case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
28. In the above circumstances this Court is not inclined to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the F.I.R. All the issues are left open to be agitated before appropriate forum and the appropriate time. The Investigation Officer is directed to complete the investigation and file final report within sixteen weeks. Therefore, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Madurai.
2.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Vinayagar Thirukoil, Sivarakkottai, Thirumangalam Division, Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.