Madras High Court
V.Ayyanar vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2021
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 15.02.2021
Pronounced on : 29.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.187 of 2017
V.Ayyanar : Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Palamedu Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime No.156 of 2014 : Respondent / Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records from the trial Court and to set aside the order
passed in Cr.M.P.No.5956 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Cum
Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, dated 11.07.2016 by allowing
this revision and direct the respondent police to investigate and file final report
in Crime No.156 of 2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Elangovan
For Respondent : Mrs.S.E.Veronica Vincent,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/14
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5956 of 2016, dated 11.07.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, dismissing the protest petition.
2.The revision petitioner has sent a complaint to the District Superintendent of Police, Madurai and the same was forwarded to the respondent police. After receipt of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.156 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 477 (A) and 420 IPC against one Thangavel and six others, which includes the Village Administrative Officers and their Assistant and after completing the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Alanganalloor Circle has filed a final report as 'mistake of fact'.
3.The learned Judicial Magistrate, after receipt of the final report, has sent a notice to the revision petitioner/complainant and the revision petitioner has entered appearance and filed a protest petition objecting to the negative report filed and sought for the relief to conduct investigation through another Investigating Officer and for filing the final report. The learned Judicial http://www.judis.nic.in 2/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 Magistrate, after conducting enquiry, has passed the impugned order on 11.07.2016, dismissing the protest petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the defacto complainant has come forward with the present revision.
4.Whether the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5956 of 2016, dated 11.07.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, is liable to be set aside?, is the point for consideration.
5.At the outset, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on perusal of the records, this Court is constrained to say that it is very much shocking and surprising to see as to how the respondent police was acting and furnishing the information and particulars to the complainant in response to the applications filed under the Right to Information Act and to the Courts as per their whims and fancies;
(i) FIR came to be registered on 12.10.2014 ;
(ii) Four accused have filed an application for anticipatory bail in Cr.M.P.No.7743 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and the prosecution has raised serious objections on 29.10.2014 for granting anticipatory bail and as a result of which, the petition came to be dismissed on 29.10.2014 ;
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017
(iii) Accused 1 to 4 and the accused No.6 have filed separate applications for anticipatory bail again before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.7930 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.No.7742 of 2014 respectively, and though the prosecution has reiterated their serious objections on 10.11.2014, anticipatory bail was granted on that day.
(iv) As per the orders of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, the accused who obtained anticipatory bail have appeared before the respondent police and subscribed their signatures till December 2014.
(v) The revision petitioner has filed a petition under the Right to Information Act on 18.12.2014, seeking information about the further action taken in respect of the FIR in Crime No.156 of 2014 and the respondent police has sent a reply on 29.12.2014, informing that no information can be given under the Right to Information Act, since the case was under investigation.
(vi) The revision petitioner has then approached this Court, seeking transfer of investigation in Crl.O.P(MD)No.614 of 2015 and when the case came up for hearing on 19.01.2015, the respondent police was directed to file a status report within a week.
(vii) When the Criminal Original Petition was posted for hearing on 22.04.2015, the respondent police has served the RCS Notice at about 08.00 a.m., on the revision petitioner and in the afternoon session, they have http://www.judis.nic.in 4/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 filed a report along with the final report, dated 17.10.2014 before the High Court.
(viii)The final report, dated 17.10.2014 was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 25.06.2015.
6.The above particulars have been mentioned, as evident from the records available before this Court and as per the particulars furnished by the revision petitioner in his protest petition. The prosecution has neither denied nor disputed the above particulars.
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, after registering the FIR on 12.10.2014, according to the prosecution, they have completed the investigation and prepared the final report on 17.10.2014 within five days from the registration of FIR. If that be so, I am at loss to understand as to why the prosecution has raised serious objection, when the anticipatory bail was moved before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai on 29.10.2014 and again on 10.11.2014, when the case itself was referred as 'mistake of fact'.
8.Moreover, it is not known as to how the respondent police has sent a reply to the revision petitioner, in response to his petition under the Right to http://www.judis.nic.in 5/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 Information Act, that investigation was pending on 29.12.2014. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the prosecution has not even chosen to give the correct and current picture of the case before this Court, during the hearings, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.614 of 2015.
9.It is evident from the records that though the final report was dated 17.10.2014, the same was shown to be filed after the lapse of more than 8 months. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the above factual aspects create a genuine doubt or suspicion over the investigation allegedly conducted by the respondent police.
10. Now, let us consider the facts of the case on hand. The case of the revision petitioner/defacto complainant in short are as follows:
The petitioner is the son-in-law of one Seeniammal, who is owning a House Plot in old survey No.101 A/ 1 A, new survey No.886/5 at Palamedu Village in Vadipatti Taluk. They came to know subsequently that some other persons' names were also included along with the said Seeniammal in the patta at the time of UDR changes. Despite filing of several petitions, they refused to effect changes in patta. Hence, the said Seeniammal filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai and obtained a decree in her favour. They have applied for patta by enclosing the judgment of the civil Court in the http://www.judis.nic.in 6/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 year 2012 and after receiving Rs.1,500/- for office expenses, Village Administrative Officer, Balakannan has issued a patta. But the petitioner subsequently came to know that even after issuing the patta in favour of his mother-in-law Seeniammal, in pursuance of the conspiracy with the other accused, he has not made necessary changes in the Registers and that the Village Administrative Officer has only issued a fake patta in favour of the Seeniammal. Taking advantage of the patta issued wrongly in favour of the accused Thilagavathi, she has executed a sale deed in favour of the accused Thangavel. The other accused Thangaraj and Gopiram had remained as witnesses to the above transaction and subscribed their signatures in the sale deed. Subsequently, patta was also changed in the name of the said Thangavel. The said Seeniammal by constructing a house, has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 50 years. The Village Administrative Officers - Balakannan and Veranaghu and their Assistant Rajendiran, after obtaining money, have created records as if he was residing in Palamedu and changed the patta. The accused by taking advantage of Seeniammal's old age, have been attempting to snatch the property by encroaching the same.
11. The revision petitioner has sent the complaint to the Superintendent of Police to take action against the respondents therein and as already pointed out, FIR came to be registered. It is necessary to refer to the findings recorded http://www.judis.nic.in 7/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 by the Investigating Officer in his final report hereunder for better appreciation;
“.........
ehd; nt;tHf;if tprhuizf;F vLj;Jf; bfhz;L cz;ikj;
jd;ik mwpa[k; bghUl;L rhl;rpfis kiwKfkhft[k;, jdpj;jdpahft[k;, thf;FKyA;fs; gjpt[ bra;jjpy; nUe;Jk;, vdJ jdpg;gl;l kiwKf tprhuizapy; nUe;Jk; nt;tHf;fpd; thjpahdth; rh;Bt vz;.101/1A g[jpa rh;Bt vz;.886/5 I Ke;ija UDR y; khWjyhfp bgah; khw;wk; bra;a;gl;L fpuhk eph;thf mYtyf gjpBtLfspy; Bkw;go nlk; jpyftjp, jA;fBtY, jA;fuh$;, Bfhgpuhk; Mfpath;fs; bgah;fspy; UDR khwp gjpBtl;Lfspy; cs;sJ. nJ rk;ke;jkhf ma;adhh; vd;gth; 2011 k; tUlk; 2 tJ rg; Bfhh;l;oy; OS vz; 72/11 tHf;F bjhlh;e;J rPdpak;khs; bgahpy; jPh;g;g[ te;jjhf kD bfhLj;J cs;shh;. Bkw;go nlk; rk;ke;jkhf vjph; kDjhuh;fs; ehd;F Bgh;fSk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; Bkw;KiwaPL bra;J tHf;F nd;Wtiu tprhuizapy; nUe;J tUfpwJ. nij kdjpy; itj;Jf;bfhz;L thjp ma;adhh; vd;gth; ghyBkL fpuhk eph;thf mYtyfk; brd;W jd; bgahpy; gl;lh khWjy; bra;a[khW kD bfhLj;Js;shh;. Bkw;go fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; Bkw;go kDit bgw;W nt;tHf;F nd;Dk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tprhuizapy; nUe;J tUtjhy; jA;fs; bgahpy; gl;lh khWjy; jw;rkak; bra;a nayhJ vd fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; Twpa[s;shh;. nij kdjpy; itj;J jd;dplk; gzk; Bfl;ljhft[k;, vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;F rhjfkhft[k;, bray;gl;L tUtjhf bgha;ahd g[fhiu mspj;Js;shh; vd vdJ tprhuizapy; bjhpatUfpwJ. BkYk; vjph; kDjhuh;fs; kPJ vg;goahtJ Fw;w tHf;F gjpt[ bra;a Btz;Lk; vd;w Behf;fpy; elf;fhj rk;gtj;ij bgha;ahf g[fhhpy; bjhptpj;Js;sJ tprhuizapy; cz;ikbad bjhpatUfpwJ. vdBt nt;tHf;fpd; rA;fjpia bghUj;jkl;oy; gpiHa[ilaJ vd;gjhy; Mistake of Fact vd nWjp mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;fpBwd;. nj;Jld; thjpf;F rhh;g[ bra;Js;s RCS nj;Jld; http://www.judis.nic.in 8/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 nizj;Js;Bsd;.”””
12. Considering the above, it is very much clear that the only ground on which, the complaint was referred as 'mistake of fact', is the pendency of the appeal allegedly filed by the respondents / accused against the judgment and decree passed in favour of Seeniammal in O.S.No.72 of 2011 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Madurai. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that no appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.72 of 2011 till now. The revision petitioner has also produced the copy of the deposition of the accused Thilagavathi recorded in C.C.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, whereunder, in cross examination, she would say specifically that the civil suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 was filed and was decreed in favour of the complainant and that they have not preferred any appeal challenging the same.
13.The respondent police, in the final report, has nowhere whispered that they have received any material or evidence to show that an appeal was filed challenging the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.72 of 2011 and that the appeal was pending at that time. According to the Investigating Officer, when the revision petitioner has approached the Village Administrative Officer of Palamedu for transfer of patta, the Village Administrative Officer expressed his http://www.judis.nic.in 9/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 inability as the case was pending before the Court. In the final report, it was admitted that the revision petitioner's mother-in-law had obtained the judgment and decree in O.S.No.72 of 2011 in her favour and it is not their case that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.72 of 2011 has been stayed by the competent Appellate Court.
14.As rightly contended by the revision petitioner, even assuming for arguments sake that the appeal allegedly filed by the respondent is pending, in the absence of any stay of operation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.72 of 2011, I am also at loss to understand as to how the Village Administrative Officer has refused for patta transfer on the ground that the case was pending.
15. It is pertinent to mention that when the accused were before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai for anticipatory bail, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the disputed property situated in Survey No.886/5, was belonging to the complainant's mother-in-law Seeniammal and in UDR patta, another person's name has been mentioned, that the petitioner's mother-in-law filed a civil suit and obtained a decree, that the Thasildar on the basis of the decree, directed the Village Administrative Officer to issue patta in http://www.judis.nic.in 10/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 the name of his mother-in-law, but, the Village Administrative Officer has not made any entry in the relevant records and that the second accused had obtained fake UDR patta regarding the disputed property and on that basis, the property was sold to A1, A3 and A4 signed as witnesses and that all the accused persons colluded together and cheated the complainant.
16.No doubt, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, by observing that the patta regarding the property situated in survey No.886/5, stands in the name of Seeniammal, that the patta regarding the property in survey No.886/2 stands in the name of A2 - Thilagawathi and that since there is no forgery regarding the property in S.No.886/5, he was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. But, it is evident from the records produced that patta was issued also with respect to the property in S.No.886/5 in favour of the said Thilagavathi and she sold the said property to A1 Thangavel.
17.The learned Judicial Magistrate on his part, by observing that the accused have not created any documents with intention to snatch the property and there was no material to show that the actual owner had suffered loss as the documents were created with intention to cheat him, that there was no change in the possession of the property and that the complaint does not disclose as to how the petitioner had suffered the loss and how the false documents were created to cheat the complainant, has given a finding that the http://www.judis.nic.in 11/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 final report as 'mistake of fact' deserves to be accepted, dismissed the protest petition.
18.Though the revision petitioner has specifically alleged that no appeal was filed against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.72 of 2011, it is not the case of the prosecution even before this Court that an appeal was pending at that time. The learned Magistrate without considering the case on proper perspective, has accepted the final report mechanically and dismissed the protest petition.
19. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the case on hand is required to be investigated further and that the impugned order dismissing the protest petition is liable to be set aside.
20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5956 of 2016, dated 11.07.2016, on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District is set aside and the respondent police is directed to investigate the case in Crime No.156 of 2014 further and file a final report within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 29.03.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No das To 1The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District,
2.The Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Madurai District.
3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
das http://www.judis.nic.in 13/14 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.187 of 2017 Pre-delivery order made in CRL.R.C.(MD).No.187 of 2017 29.03.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in 14/14