Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.Pending disposal of SLPs on the file of the Supreme Court, one P.Selvamani residing at No.B1/17, Moon Enclave Apartment, Mugappair West, Chennai-37, who is the second respondent in Crl.O.P.No.23140 of 2011 lodged a complaint before V7 Nolambur Police Station on 1.8.2011 against the first petitioner Ranganathan, the second petitioner T.C.Venkatesh @ Gowri Sankar and 5 others Dhanasingh, Albert, Jayaram, Rathinapati, and Juliet Gnanavathi. The complaint proceeds as if the defacto complainant is the permanent resident of Moon Enclave Apartment, Mugappair and he purchased a house site measuring 1 ground from one Gupta during 2002 and obtained due license and permission for putting up construction and while so, during 2008 he along with 120 persons, who are all the purchasers of land measuring 20 acres in different survey numbers in Nolambur, received copy of exparte injunction order granted in favour of one Gowri Sankar on the basis of the documents produced on his side before Poonamallee court and the defacto complainant and others immediately entered appearance in the suit and injunction order was modified into an order of status quo. While so, the named second accused Venkatesh @ Gowri Sankar at the instigation of the named first accused B.Ranganathan, came to the property along with his hirelings, armed with weapons and put up a shed and installed a board and when the defacto complainant and others met Gowri Sankar and others in the site, they were threatened with dire consequences, to leave the site, after receiving 25% of the amount paid by them by way of sale consideration. The enquiry in the Tahsildar office reveals that kist receipts in C77 series for the faslis 1405, 1406 and 1407, which were filed into court by Gowrisankar, are forged documents on the strength of which Ranganathan and others threatened the individual owner of the land with dire consequences and action is warranted against all the seven accused for act of criminal intimidation on the basis of the forged documents. The compliant was received at 3pm on 1.8.2011 and the same was registered on the file of V7 Nolambur Police station as Cr.no.758 of 2011 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 387, 506(ii), 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and the same was followed by commencement of investigation by the first respondent/IO. Pending investigation, A1 to A5 were arrested on 2.8.2011 and were remanded to judicial custody on 3.8.2011 and an application was filed into court on 3.8.2011 under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C seeking police custody of the accused 1 and 2 for their custodial interrogation and the same was rejected by the concerned judicial Magistrate. The correctness of the order of rejection by the Judicial Magistrate was challenged in Crl.O.P.No.18888 of 2011 and this court by order dated 12.8.2011 dismissed the criminal Original Petition on the ground that the police custody of A1 and A2 for custodial interrogation is unwarranted.

6.The complaint proceeds as if the defacto complainant, his brother Dhanasekaran and his paternal uncles Padmanabhan and Venkatraman have been running Brick Klins and are income tax assessees and T.C.Venkatesh @ Gowrisankar claiming himself to be the representative of M/s. National Developers established and run by B.Ranganathan, former M.L.A of Villivakkam and Purasaiwakkam constituencies, represented to them that other four accused are the absolute owners and possessors of vacant land in various survey numbers measuring 20.95 acres in Nolambur Village and a portion of the land measuring 94 cents is offered for sale and the owners have authorised M/s.National Developers to mediate for and on their behalf to fix the sale price and to sell the said portion of the land and the second petitioner herein T.C.Venkatesh @ Gowrisankar was assisting the first accused Ranganathan and the same was also verified from A1 Ranganathan. When the defacto complainant and others met him in person, A1 and A2 assured and represented that other four accused have valid and marketable title and the landed property in question is not subjected to any encumbrance and all of them bonafidly believed and trusted the representation made by A1 and A2 respectively as genuine and agreed to purchase the land for sale consideration of Rs.5 crores and paid advance of Rs.2,50,00,000/- by way of two cheques drawn in favour of National Developers and two cheques were also encashed and thereafter, the intending purchasers were summoned to Sub Registrar Office at Konnur at 4 pm for getting the sale agreement executed and three out of four persons had been to Registrar office and the remaining four accused were shown as owners and family cards and bank cards were shown as proof of their identity and the defacto complainant and two others were compelled to sign the documents without being allowed to read the same and the same was also registered. Subsequently, they came to know that larger extent of 17.15 acres as against 94 cents has been mentioned as the land agreed to be purchased for Rs.34,30,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and when they questioned A1 and A2 regarding the discrepancy, they promised them to set right all the matters and make other four persons to execute the sale deed by mentioning the correct particulars. Inspite of repeated demands made, the execution of sale documents being postponed by A1 and A2 and A3 to A7. In the mean while, they approached the civil court by filing suit O.S.No.23 of 2008 for certain reliefs and again, the defacto complainant met them and they promised them to settle the issue shortly and thereafter to execute the sale deeds. Subsequently, there was no proper response from the persons concerned, which compelled the defacto complainant and others apprehending foul play to approach the plot owners association, who filed earlier complaint against A1 and A2 and who issued publication in the newspaper.