Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Criminal Revision arises against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4343 of 2014 on 02.07.2014.

2. Petitioner preferred a complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, informing that he was the trustee and treasurer of a trust by name Tirupur Educational Foundation, which ran a polytechnic college and owned properties. He informed that the trust was formed in the year 1982 by his father, the father of the first respondent and one another. The founders, the first respondent and one another were the trustees thereof. On the expiry of the other four trustees, the Board was reconstituted and the first respondent became the Managing Trustee/Chairman, one Mr.N.Ravindran, the Trustee/Secretary, the petitioner/complainant, the trustee/treasurer and fourth accused in the complaint T.R.Karthik and S.Sarangarajan, trustees. All the funds of the trust were to be utilized only towards developing the trust. No powers had been vested even with the Managing Trustee to alienate or encumber any of the trust properties. An extent of 2.84 acres in S.F.No.203 and an extent of 7.44 acres in S.F.No.207 at Morattupalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tirupur District, belonged to the trust. The trust had put up a building of an extent of 10000 sq.ft. on the said property and started the 'Nanjappa Institute of Polytechnic'. Later, the insititution was shifted to Karumathampatty. Thereafter, the building was maintained by the first respondent/Managing Trustee. While so, the first respondent, without informing petitioner and other trustees, had leased out an extent of 5 acres along with the building to 'M/s.Prema Matriculation School'. The petitioner came to know thereof only in May 2012. Aggrieved by the action of the first respondent, the petitioner and other trustees had sought a copy of the lease deed which the first respondent failed to produce. Hence, the petitioner applied for certified copies of the lease deed dated 26.04.2002 registered as document No.438/2002 and supplementary lease deed dated 04.04.2008 registered as document No.1474 of 2008 and obtained the same on 25.05.2012. On persual of the lease deed dated 26.04.2002, the petitioner and the Board of Trustees came to know that M/s.Park Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee P.V.Ravi/A1 had executed the said lease deed in favour of M/s.Prema Matriculation School, represented by its Secretary and Correspondent, Prema Ravi/A2. In such lease deed, M/s.Park Trust categorically had claimed themselves to be the lessor, that they were the absolute owners of the lease property and that they have power to lease out the same. It has also been stated that M/s.Park Trust leased out the properties to M/s.Prema Matriculation School for 15 years from 01.04.2002 at a rent of Rs.100/- per month and had received an advance of Rs.5,000/- from such School. Petitioner informed that on a perusal of the supplementary lease deed dated 04.04.2008, they came to know that A1 and A2 in the capacity of Managing Trustee of M/s.Park Trust and Secretary and Correspondent of M/s.Prema Matriculation School respectively, have renewed the lease for another 45 years on the same terms and conditions of the previous lease deed. Petitioner informed that the said 5 acres along with school building measuring an extent of 10000 sq.ft. belonged to Tirupur Educational Foundation Trust and it would fetch a minimum rent of Rs.75,000/- per month. A1 had knowledge thereof. The said property could not be leased out or sold without the consent of the Board of Trustees/permission of Court. A resolution to such effect also is necessary. Though A1 had knowledge of the said facts, he along with other accused, acted in an unlawful manner (i) to create an impression that the property belonged to M/s.Park Trust and to gain wrongful profit and (ii) to lease out the said property to M/s.Prema Matriculation School, which is their family institution, for a meagre rent of Rs.100/- per month and to cause financial loss to Tirupur Educational Foundation. Without conducting any meeting of the Board of Trustees since 2009 and without filing income-tax returns for the past three years, A1, in May 2012, informed the trust that 12 acres of Tirupur Educational Foundation Trust's property was in litigation and he required a power of attorney to sell 30 acres of trust lands. Upon receiving such information, the Tirupur Educational Foundation, required him to produce the relevant documents. However, he failed to do so. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Tirupur, against accused 1 to 5 alleging offences u/s.120-A, 468, 471, 420, 418, 423, 424 and 405 IPC and the same was forwarded to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Land Grabbing Cell, Tirupur, who, upon enquiry, had concluded that no offence of land grabbing stood made out. A further enquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Land Grabbing Cell, Erode, who had also concluded that no offence of land grabbing stood made out. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Crl.O.P.No.11137 of 2013 before this Court and pursuant to orders of this Court dated 13.11.2013, a case in Crime No.37 of 2013 for offences u/s.467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC was registered. However, the police, without calling the petitioner for enquiry, closed the complaint as 'mistake of fact' and furnished a copy to him. Thereafter, when the Board of Trustees sent a notice to A1 and other Trustees with an Agenda for Suspension, the accused had produced documents, which were not relevant to the case. Though the complaint did not pertain to land grabbing, the same was forwarded to Land Grabbing Cell and was closed as 'mistake of fact'. Hence, the petitioner preferred a private complaint. The same was taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.4343 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, and was dismissed u/s.203 Cr.P.C. on 02.07.2014. There against, this revision.

5. Learned senior counsel submitted that on a bare reading, the complaint informed commission of offences. It was not open to learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi to dismiss the same u/s.203 Cr.P.C. The truth or otherwise of the complaint allegations as also the guilt or the innocence of the persons accused were matters for trial. The Magistrate had fallen into error in dismissing the complaint on the premise that the contention of the petitioner of his not being aware of the lease deeds of the years 2002 and 2008 and of the wrong doings of the accused 1 to 5 upto May 2012, despite Prema Matriculation School having been functional to the knowledge of all from 2002 and the extension of the lease in favour of the School for its benefit in the year 2008, was unacceptable inasmuch as the petitioner admittedly was the treasurer of the Tirupur Educational Foundation and it was his duty to protect its interests and to verify its affairs and accounts on a year to year basis.

9. Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the Tirupur Educational Foundation had been formed in the year 1982 by three persons and the first respondent and his father were co-opted as trustees. The foundation has purchased a huge extent of 50 acres and a building of 10000 sq.ft. had been put up for a College. Finding the location inconducive for running a College, the trust had passed a resolution in 1991 and the College had been shifted to Karumathampatty village. In 1991, the trust had resolved to lease the building to M/s.Park Trust at an annual rent of Rs.12,000/- on the stipulation that the land and building were to be used by M/s.Park Trust only for running an educational institution and no profiteering was to be indulged in. In keeping with such resolution the then Managing Trustee had executed an unregistered lease deed in favour of the M/s.Park Trust in 1993. In 2002, the lessee, M/s.Park Trust, had executed a registered lease deed in favour of Prema Matriculation School for a period of 15 years. An advance of Rs.5,000/- was received and the rent was fixed at Rs.100/- per month. The first respondent had become the Managing Director of M/s.Park Trust. Under supplementary lease deed dated 04.04.2008, the lease had been extended for 45 years. The case had been investigated twice over and on both occasions, the investigation has concluded that no offence stood committed. The petitioner had obtained orders in Crl.O.P.No.11137 of 2013 on 06.08.2013. Referred charge sheet had been filed on 25.11.2013 and notice had been issued to the petitioner. The original Managing Trustee and others had by then died. Suppressing the above position, a fresh complaint came to be preferred before learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, arraying also police personnel as accused. The same has been dismissed u/s.203 Cr.P.C. on 02.07.2014. The Magistrate had concluded that there had been no response to the notice regards the referred charge sheet and the petitioner was aware of the functioning of the school from 2002 but had kept quiet till 2012. The entire extent had been leased out by the then Managing Trustee in 1993 pursuant to resolution of the year 1991 and not having complained of any acts of forgery in the complaint preferred by the petitioner, the ground of forgery of resolution of the year 1991 was being raised for the first time in the present revision.