Madras High Court
P.Sundaramurthy vs Inspector Of Police on 26 March, 2021
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved On : 23.07.2020
Pronounced On : 26.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017
P.Sundaramurthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Cell,
Central Crime Branch, 18th Team,
Chennai – 600 007.
2.The Addl.Director General of Police (Crime),
Office of the Crime Branch CID,
Egmore – Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the case in Ref
No.780/DC.CCB-II/PE/2016 for investigation from the file of the
Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Central Crime
Branch,18th Team, Chennai 600 007, to the 2nd respondent, the
CBCID, Chennai or to any other investigating agency.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anbalagan
For Respondents : Mr.Iyyapparaj
Addl.Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to transfer the case in Ref No.780/DC.CCB-II/PE/2016, for investigation, from the file of the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Central Crime Branch, 18th Team, Chennai 600 007, to the file of the 2nd respondent, the CB-CID, Chennai or to any other Investigating Agency.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was employed as Senior Lecturer in Central Polytechnic College, Taramani, Chennai. On 20.08.1990, he was allotted one MIG Twin House, bearing Door No.4/690 in Mogappair Division and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- towards the cost of the said house. Subsequently, on 02.02.2001, he entered into an agreement for sale with one Sathhish for a sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and delivered possession of the said Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 house and the witnesses are one P.Pachaiappan and K.Kamaraj. On 30.05.2001, the petitioner requested the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to execute the sale deed in his favour and the petitioner received a reply from the TNHB asking certain documents, including Encumbrance Certificate. When the petitioner applied for Encumbrance Certificate, he came to know that TNHB already executed a sale deed on 25.05.2005 in favour of one K.P.Sundaramurthy, (petitioner's name) registered as Document No.2636/2005, in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Konnur.
3. It is his further submission that the petitioner never called by the TNHB to get the sale deed registered in his favour and someone has impersonated, forged his signatures and received the original title deed for the said house. Further, the petitioner came to know that the witness Kamaraj, with the help of forged power of attorney sold the above said premises to one Gajapathy. Hence, the petitioner, on 11.05.2016, lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Crime branch, Chennai under Ref.No.2193/CCB/Visitors/2016, which was referred to the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, who in turn, on 14.12.2016 sent a letter to the petitioner, Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 stating that the documents required for investigation were not produced either by TNHB or the petitioner and hence, they are not in a position to investigate further and asked petitioner to file a fresh complaint with necessary documents for necessary action. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent did not investigate the case in proper manner. Therefore, change of investigation is necessary in this case.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that on a complaint given by the petitioner, the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, which was acknowledged and a reference number in Ref.No.780/DC.CCB-II/PE/2016 was given. Immediately, the Investigating Officer took up the investigation. The Investigation Officer wrote a letter to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, on 18.04.2016, asking certain details and further he is also informed the petitioner to produce certain documents. The Investigating Officer not received any documents either from the TNHB or from the petitioner. Hence, the Investigating Officer informed the petitioner that since the documents required for investigation were not produced either by TNHB or the petitioner, Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 they are not in a position to investigate further and asked petitioner to file a fresh complaint with necessary documents for necessary action and therefore, the question of transferring investigation from the file of the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Central Crime Branch,18th Team, Chennai 600 007, to the 2nd respondent, the CBCID, Chennai or to any other investigating agency, does not arise. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Upon considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing on either side, it is true that on the complaint given by the petitioner in Ref No.780/DC.CCB-II/PE/2016, the 1st respondent Police, unable to continue the investigation due to non- availability of documents and non co-operation of the petitioner in producing the documents, which the respondent requested the petitioner to produce such documents. No doubt, the allegations in the complaint are serious in nature and it should be thoroughly investigated to find out the truth. It is seen that on 14.12.2016, Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, wrote a letter to the TNHB as well as the petitioner informing to produce certain documents, which are essential for investigation. Since there was no reply, the 1st respondent Police informed the petitioner that they are not in a position to continue the investigation and asked petitioner to file a fresh complaint with necessary documents, for further action.
7. It is seen that the 1st respondent obviously has not taken the complaint of the petitioner seriously. The complaint dated 10.05.2016 received in the Office of the Commissioner of Police on 11.05.2016 assigned C.No.2193/CCB/Visitors/2016, forwarded to the first respondent, who assigned C.No.780/DC.CCB- II/PE/2016, preliminary enquiry taken up, communication sent to the Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Dr.J.J.Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tirumangalam Union-37, on 18.04.2016, asking them to furnish documents and particulars, followed by another Communication, dated 17.11.2016. Surprisingly, both the letters were sent and received on 18.11.2016 by TNHB, thereafter, by Communication, dated 14.12.2016 informed the petitioner that there is no response from Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 TNHB, hence, a fresh complaint with documents to be produced. From these communication, it is clear that no worthwhile efforts has been taken by the first respondent, only table top enquiry done. The respondent not even sent summons under Section 91 Cr.P.C., calling for documents, which he is empowered. The preliminary enquiry is an eye wash.
8. From the complaint of the petitioner, dated 10.05.2016, it is apparent that offence of forgery and cheating have been committed. Further, the complaint is submitted along with 9 documents, which is not denied. The petitioner / complainant is no uncertain terms had stated that TNHB had not executed any schedule in favour of the petitioner. He was not called for execution of Document No.2636 of 2005, dated 25.03.2005. Some persons had impersonated him and the officials of TNHB, in collusion with such persons, executed a forgery document, further following this document, two more documents in POA: Doc.488 of 2005, dated 25.05.2005, in favour of one K.Kamaraj is also forged, followed by another Sale Deed, Document No.4345 of 2005, dated 05.09.2005 is said to have been executed by K.Kamaraj, as power of attorney of petitioner to one Gajapathi is also forged. The Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 petitioner has produced the copy of the documents originals with thumb impression will be with S.Gajapathi, who is claiming ownership on occupying MIG Twin House No.4/690 ( S.No.22 Part of Nolambur Village) Mogappair West, corresponding records with fingerprints available in the concerned Sub-Registrar, Registration Department. The other document is available in the Office of the concerned TNHB. Collection and verification of these documents, could have unearthed the conspirators and the involvement of the accused in commission of the offence. On the other hand, the communication dated 14.12.2016, of the first respondent which is extracted hereunder:-
“..............NkYk; jq;fsJ Gfhu; rk;ke;jkhd tprhuizf;F, jq;fSf;F TNHB thupak;, Nkw;fz;l ,lj;jpid xJf;fPL nra;j mry; xJf;fPL Mtzk; kw;Wk; Nkw;fz;l jq;fSf;F nrhe;jkhd epyj;jpid TNHB thupa mjpfhupfs; JizAld; mgfupj;jJs;sjw;F cz;lhd Mtz Mjhuq;fis ,Jehs; tiuapy; jhq;fNsh my;yJ TNHB thupankh nfhLf;fhj fhuzj;jpdhy,; jq;fsJ Gfhupd; cz;ik mwpe;j Nky; eltbf;if vLf;f ,ayhj epiyapy; cs;sJ. vdNt, jq;fSila nrhj;J rk;ke;jg;gl;l midj;J Mtzq;fSld; Gjpajhf kD nfhLj;jhy; jDe;j eltbf;if vLf;fg;gLk; vd;gij njuptpj;J nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”
9. It is seen that the above extracted portion would only prove that no worthwhile enquiry conducted, to follow it up with Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 the investigation, to find out the truth and complete the investigation. The letharginess of the Investigating Agency emboldens the offenders to continue to commit such offences in future, which can not be permitted. I am of the view that there are sufficient materials to justify transfer of investigation. In this case, enough material has been brought on record by the petitioner to justify his plea of transfer to any other Investigating Agency, from the present one. Hence, this Court is inclined to entertain the petition.
10. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint to the 2nd respondent with necessary documents. The 2nd respondent to direct the Inspector of Police, CB CID Metro, Chennai, to register a case and investigate the same to find out the involvement of the accused, including the officials of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Registration Department and others, as without connivance of the officials, these types of offences cannot be committed. The Inspector of Police, CB CID Metro, Chennai to take all earnest steps, giving priority to this case and to complete the investigation within a time frame. This direction is issued Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 considering the pain, sufferings of the petitioner, who is the retired Professor and a septuagenarian.
26.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MPK
Note : Issue order copy on 30.03.2021
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017
To
1.Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Cell,
Central Crime Branch, 18th Team,
Chennai – 600 007.
2.The Addl.Director General of Police (Crime), Office of the Crime Branch CID, Egmore – Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Inspector of Police CB CID Metro Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Page 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 MPK PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.14378 of 2017 26.03.2021 Page 12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/