Madras High Court
Subbaiah vs State Through
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 09.11.2022
DELIVERED ON : 25.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.O.P (MD) No.15779 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.10425 and 10428 of 2022
1.Subbaiah
2.Amsavalli ...Petitioners / Accused No.1 and 2
vs.
1.State through
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch (ALGSC),
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
Crime No.44 of 2019 ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.Ponnaiah ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.18 of 2022 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Sivagangai and quash the same as
against the Petitioner as illegal in interest of justice.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Sudharani
For R-1 : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 : Mr.R.Senthilkumar
ORDER
The Petitioners had filed this petition seeking to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.18 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Sivagangai and quash the same as against the Petitioners as illegal in the interest of justice.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have submitted their arguments on 04.11.2022 and the case was adjourned to 09.11.2022, today.
3. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the Petitioners herein are the father and daughter who are A1 and A2. By misusing and exploiting the defects in the UDR Patta, the second 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 Respondent who is employed as staff of the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District, had forged the revenue records. With the same, they had transferred the properties in the names of A3 and A4. The properties belonging to the Defacto Complainant were transferred through forged documents misusing the status of the second Petitioner / A2 as a staff in the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruppathur and in collusion with her father A1. They had transferred the property by creating forged documents in favour of A3 and A4 by exploiting the defects in UDR Patta. Patta originally was in the name of the Defacto Complainant Ponnaiah, S/o.Periyasamy Ambalam for the property in Survey No.329/7 to the extent of 0.96.50 Ares and 2 Acres 39 Cents in Yeriyoor Revenue Group, E.Valaiyappatti Village, Yeriyoor Post, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District. A3 and A4 had executed a sale deed in favour of A5.
4. The property that actually belonged to the Defacto Complainant / 2nd Respondent had been sold by creating documents by A1 and A2 to A3 and A4. Subsequently, A3 and A4 had sold the property to A5. Therefore, the second Respondent was forced to lodge a complaint, based on which, First Information Report in Crime No.44 of 2019 was registered before the 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 District Crime Branch, Sivagangai. The Petitioners herein are A1 and A2. A3 and A4 are sons of Vellaiyan who are residing in Dindigul District. They had sold the property to A5 Moorthilingam S/o.Thirunavukarasu, who is residing in Thirumalai, Sivagangai District.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the First Information Report and the statement of the Defacto Complainant Ponnaiah under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C and the relevant portion in the statement of the Defacto Complainant recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. is extracted as under:
“Nkw;gb nrhj;Jf;F rpwpJk; rk;ge;jk; ,y;yhj jpz;Lf;fy;
khtl;lk;> ej;jk; tl;lk;> FWf;Fj;njU> fjT vz;:1/35-y; FbapUe;J tUk; (Nyl;) nts;isad; kfd;fs; Kj;ijah kw;Wk; khaoF Mfpa ,U egh;fSk; 1tJ vjphpahd Rg;igah vd;gthpd;; J}z;Ljy; kw;Wk; MNyhridapd; Nghpy; Nkw;gb Rg;igahtpd; kfs; 2-tJ vjphpahd mk;rts;sp vd;gth; jpUg;gj;J}h; rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; gzpGhpe;J tUtij gad;gLj;jp jhd; me;j nrhj;ij vg;gbAk; mila Ntz;Lk; vd;w vz;zj;Jld;4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 Nkw;gb nrhj;jpd; gl;lhit tUtha;Jiwapdiu Vkhw;wp gl;lhit khw;wp 5-tJ vjphpahd %h;j;jpypq;fk; vd;gtUf;F &.1>19>000/-f;F 21.11.2017-y; Mtz vz;:1282-d;gb kjFgl;b rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; Nkhrbahf fpiua gj;jpuk; gjpT nra;Js;shh;fs;. mjd;gpwF vdJ nrhj;ij 2-tJ vjphpahd mk;rts;spf;F mtuJ je;ijahd 1-tJ vjphpahd Rg;igahtpd; cle;ijAld; Nkw;gb %h;j;jpypq;fj;jplkpUe;J 13.07.2018-k; Njjp Mtz vz;:
975/18 %yk; fiuak; ngw;Ws;shh;. NkYk; fle;j 18.10.2019-k; Njjp fhiy 11.00 kzpastpy; ehd; jhth nrhj;jpw;F fhhpy; nrd;W ghh;j;jNghJ 2-tJ vjphpahd mk;rts;sp vd;id ghh;j;J jhd; ,e;j ,lj;ij %h;j;jpypq;fk; vd;gthplkpUe;J fpiuak;
thq;fpAs;sjhfTk;> ve;j tf;fPy; itj;J ghh;j;jhYk; vd;id xd;Wk; nra;a KbahJ vd;Wk;> ehd; jpUg;gj;J}h;
rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; Ntiy ghh;gg
; jhy; vd;did
vJTk; nra;a KbahJ vd;Wk; vd;id kpul;br;
nrd;Wtpl;lhh;. vdNt> ehd; xU tajhd Vio tptrhap vd;gij gad;gLj;jp vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l nrhj;ij jpl;lkpl;L rjpjpl;lk; nra;J Nghyp Mtzq;fs; jahh; nra;J vd;id Vkhw;wpa 1 Kjy; 5 vjphpfs; kPJ jf;f eltbf;if vLf;f Gfhh; nfhLj;Njd;.” 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 The Relevant Portion in the charge sheet is extracted here under:
“21.11.2017-k; Njjp rpq;fk;Gzhp tl;lk;> VhpA+h; mQ;ry;> E.tiyagl;b fpuhkj;jpy;> VhpA+h; nutpd;A+ F&g;> rh;Nt vz;:
329/7-y; GQ;ir tp];jPuzk; 0.96.50 Vh;];> Vf;fh; 2.39 nrd;l epy xg;gilg;G (mird;nkd;l;) %yk; jkpof murhy; thjp ngahpy; 715-k; eph; gl;lh toq;fg;gl;lij> UDR (epy clik Nkk;ghL jpl;l rh;Ntapy;) Nkw;gb nrhj;ij nghparhkp kfd; nts;isad; vd;Wk; jtwhf gl;lh vz;:868 eph; vd jtwhf fzpzpapy; gjpT nra;ag;gl;lij njhpe;J nfhz;l ,t;tof;fpd; 1-tJ vjphp Rg;igah vd;gth; jdJ kfshd 2-tJ mk;rts;sp vd;gth; jpUg;gj;J}h; rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; cjtpahsuhf gzpGhptij gad;gLj;jp mtuJ cle;ijAld;> 3-tJ vjphp khaoF> 4-tJ vjphp Kj;ijah vd;gth;fspd;> je;ij ngauhd nts;isad; vd;gij gad;gLj;jp jdJ je;ij ,we;j gpwJ thhpR mbg;gilapy; jq;fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;W Nghypahf Mtzk; jahh; nra;J Nkhrbahf ngha;ahtzk; Gide;Jk;
me;j ngha;aghtzj;ij NtzLnkd;Nw Vkhw;Wk;
cl;fUj;Jld; cz;ikahdJ Nghy;
6/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022
gad;gLj;jp ,t;tof;fpd; 5-tJ vjphpahd %h;j;jpypq;fk;
vd;gth; ngaUf;F kjFgl;b rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyf Mtz vz;:128/2017 ehs;:21.11.2017-d;gb gjpT fpiuak; nfhLj;Js;shh;fs;. me;j Nkhrb fpiua gj;jpuj;jpy; 1-tJ vjphp Rg;igah vd;gtUk;> 6-tJ vjphp kjp vd;gtUk;
rhl;rpfshf ifnahg;gk; nra;Js;shh;fs;.”,
6. It is the subject matter of evidence, which has to be appreciated only by the trial Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate by assessing the evidence let in by the witnesses before the trial Court. What are all the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners can at best, be treated as valuable submissions before the trial Court and not considered as materials to set aside in the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss this petition along with direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the case within a specific time.
7. All the witnesses cited in the case are officials of the State. There are only twelve witnesses. Therefore, the case can be disposed of without 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 much delay.
8. By way of rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had filed the suit in O.S.No.338 of 2019 before the learned District Munsif Court, Singampunari. When the Civil Court had seized of the matter, the Criminal Court cannot decide the matter.
9. The learned Counsel for the second Respondent / Defacto Complainant submitted that the written statement clearly states that the suit was filed by the second Accused / Amsavali, who is the person behind the forging of documents. With help of the documents, she has instituted the suit in O.S.No.338 of 2019 before the learned District Munsif, Singampunari. The second Respondent / Defacto Complainant, who is 77 years old senior citizen. Before 12.01.1977, the suit property was assigned to him by the Government of Tamil Nadu and issued Patta in Patta No.715 and he is in enjoyment of the suit property for more than 45 years. While so, the UDR Patta contents were misused by the Plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No. 338 of 2019 and she had utilized that to create documents in her favour. As stated in the complaint, as stated in the First Information Report, as stated in 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and submission of Defacto Complainant / 2nd Respondent and the written statement contains the same facts, regarding the allegations against the Plaintiff in O.S.No.338 of 2019 and the civil suit is pending before the District Munisf Court, Singampunari. Therefore, it is for the civil Court to decide the matter. The second Petitioner herein is stated to be a staff of the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruppathur, who had misused the defect in the UDR Patta to create the revenue records (forged). Based on the forged revenue records, the Plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.338 of 2019 on the file of District Munsif, Singampunari and along with her father A1, had created the documents in favour of A3 and A4. A3 and A4 further transferred the property to A5 behind the back of the Defacto Complainant. So it is clearly attracting the offences under Section 468, 471, 420 and 120(b) of IPC including the crime of Land Grabbing. Therefore, it is for the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act cases to consider the trial.
10. In the light of the above discussion, this Petition is dismissed. The Petitioners are directed to cooperate with the pending trial in C.C.No.18 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 (Special Court for DCB Cases).
11. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II Sivagangai, is directed to dispose of the case within a reasonable period of two months. Since the offences alleged in the Final Report attract Sections 468, 471, 420, 120(b) IPC, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, after framing the charges, shall fix the date for trial. Thereby, twelve witnesses can be examined within three months and dispose of the case as early as possible.
12. The witnesses thereby shall be cross examined on the same day. As per the the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 1 MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC), request of either the accused or their counsels to recall witnesses at their whims and fancies shall not be considered. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, shall adhere to the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 1 MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC), shall proceed with examining the witnesses. The independent witnesses shall be examined in two days and official witnesses can be examined in another two days, thereby, within a period of one week, examination of witnesses can be 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 completed and the case has to be disposed of within a reasonable period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. If any of the accused absconds, Non Bailable Warrant shall be issued. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai, shall execute the Warrant. If the accused is produced on Warrant, thereby, he or they shall be detained in Prison by cancelling the bail already granted to them, even if it is granted by the High Court or Sessions Court as per the reported ruling P.K.Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji Vs. State of Kerala. The accused shall be detained in Prison till the case is disposed of. The 1st Respondent shall promptly produce the witnesses as directed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed 25.11.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no indu 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15779 of 2022 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
indu To
1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (ALGSC), Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No.15779 of 2022 25.11.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis