Madras High Court
T.S.Sivakumar vs State By: The Inspector Of Police on 9 December, 2021
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
Crl.O.P.No.26171 of
2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.13963 and 13964 of 2019
1.T.S.Sivakumar
2.S.Parimala ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. State by: The Inspector of Police
Perundurai Police Station,
Erode District.
(Crime No.201 of 2015).
2.K.P.Jayaramakrishnan
Sub-Registrar,
Perundurai,
Erode District.
3.Dr.T.S.Chellakumarasamy
(R3 impleaded as per order in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2020 in
Crl.O.P.No.2617 of 2019, dated 29.01.2020)
...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to charge sheet in
C.C.No.49 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.26171 of
2019
Magistrate, Perundurai, Erode District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Balachandran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.M.Guruprasad for R3
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to charge sheet in C.C.No.49 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, Erode District and quash the same.
2. On the complaint lodged by one Jayaramakrishnan, Sub Registrar, Perundurai (the second respondent herein), the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.201 of 2015 on 06.03.2015 against Sivakumar for offence under Sections 120(b), 465, 467, 468 and 420 of IPC and he also produced a copy of the charge sheet. 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019
3. To appreciate the FIR, it may be necessary to briefly narrate the factual matrix as under:
(i) Dr.T.S.Chellakumarasamy (the third respondent) and T.S.Sivakumar, the petitioner herein, are blood brothers. Their father late T.S.Subramaniam owned 0.63 cents of land in Survey No.505 in Karumandichellipalayam Village, said to be given to T.S.Sivakumar(A1) by way of settlement deed dated 07.05.2014 registered as document No.1138 of 2004, before the Sub-Registrar's Office, Perundurai.
(ii) The allegation of Dr.T.S.Chellakumarasamy is that T.S.Sivakumar made alteration in the property schedule of the original settlement deed by including Re-survey No.500 along with Survey No.505 so as to usurp his property. In other words, in the original settlement deed which was with T.S.Sivakumar, made corrections in the schedule by fraudulently including Re-Survey No.500, on the strength of which, he settled the property in favour of his wife (A2) by a settlement 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019 deed dated 06.09.2013, registered as document No.4200 of 2013, before the Sub-Registrar's Office at Perundurai.
4. Mr.D.Balachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that on the complaint given by Dr.T.S.Chellakumarasamy, who is the brother of the petitioner/accused, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch conducted an enquiry and closed the complaint against T.S.Sivakumar on 11.11.2014 on the ground that the suit in O.S.No.143 of 2014 is pending between the parties and that apart, there is no change in the extent of property that was conveyed by their father late T.S.Subramaniam in favour of T.S.Sivakumar.
5. Aggrieved by that, the 3rd respondent took up the matter to the registration officials complaining to them that T.S.Sivakumar has manipulated the schedule in the original document and prayed for an enquiry. Accordingly, the Registrar also conducted an enquiry during which, he also appeared and produced the photo copy of the settlement 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019 deed to the authorities. But the registrar without perusing the document erroneously come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie evidence that the original settlement deed dated 07.05.2014 stands in his name was manipulated by including Re-Survey No.500. Hence, he referred the complaint. Accordingly, the FIR was registered in Crime No.201 of 2015, after completion of the enquiry, the final charge sheet was filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second petitioner, who is the wife of the first petitioner is unnecessarily harassed and she was no way connected in the alleged execution of the settlement deed and the dispute is between her husband and his brother. Further he would submit that the civil suit is pending. The 3rd respondent filed this complaint and she prays to quash the same.
7. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the property which was settled in favour of the first petitioner is only 3 cents by his father but he manipulated by including R.S.No.500 with a 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019 malafide intention and intended to grab more extent of property, thereafter he executed a settlement deed including R.S.No.500, in favour of his wife/second respondent herein, based upon that the settlement deed, the second petitioner approached the revenue authorities to transfer the same in her favour by ignoring the legal representation of the 3rd respondent, who is original owner of R.S.No.500. So the 3rd respondent, who is a Doctor by profession gave a complaint to the registering authority to enquire about veracity and genuineness of the settlement deed. Accordingly, the Registrar conducted an enquiry on 29.09.2014, in which the first petitioner also appeared but he has not produced the original documents, which was requested by the Registrar, since the original document was not produced. The Sub Registrar concluded that there is some manipulation in the document. The FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The 3rd respondent also enclosed the copy of the documents which was manipulated by the first petitioner as well as the original settlement deed, which was executed by his father.
6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019
8. On perusal of settlement deed (copy of original) dated 07.05.2004, scheduled of property as follows:
<nuhL hpo bgUe;Jiw rg;o bgUe;Jiw rg;o bgUe;Jiw tl;lk;. fUkhz;obry;ypghisak; fpuhkk; g[jpa hPr/505 ej;jk; jpUnt';fplk;ghisak; Ch;f;fl;oy;//////////////
9. On perusal of the manipulated document, which was annexed in page No.26, dated 07.05.2004, it is seen that the settlement deed is said to be executed by his father viz., T.S.Subramaniam, in favour of the first petitioner. As pointed out by the intervenor's counsel, this document is certified by the Advocate/Notary Public of one Advocate of Perundurai and in that the schedule of property is mentioned as follows:
brhj;J tpguk;
<nuhL hpo bgUe;Jiw rg;o bgUe;Jiw rg;o bgUe;Jiw tl;lk; fUkhz;obry;ypghisak; fpuhkk; g[jpa fr/505 jw;nghija hPr/500 ej;jk; jpUnt';fplk;ghisak; Ch;f;fl;oy/;////////////////// 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019
10. It clearly reveals that in the original document only Survey No.505 has been mentioned whereas in the alleged manipulated document, Re-survey No.500 has been inserted by fraud. Furthermore, the property schedule in original settlement deed differs from the alleged manipulated settlement deed.
11. Based upon the manipulated documents, he executed a settlement deed in favour of wife/first petitioner herein by including S.No.505 and New.S.No.500. Therefore, the petitioners knowing fully well committed fraud by manipulated documents, which resulted in the filing of the charge sheet. Hence, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings. If a man committed fraud, he shall be thrown out at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, pendency of civil suit is not a bar to initiate the criminal proceedings for the reason that the petitioners all these years abused the process of law for their unlawful enrichment.
Moreover, the 1st petitioner purposely avoided to attend enquiry before the registering authorities nor he produced the original documents, which 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019 itself clearly indicate the malafide intention of the petitioner/accused.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Since the matter is pending in the year 2016, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.12.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ub To
1. The Inspector of Police Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.
2.K.P.Jayaramakrishnan Sub-Registrar, Perundurai, Erode District.
9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., ub Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019 10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26171 of 2019 09.12.2021 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis