Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 05.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.13399 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos.7178 & 7180 of 2022
1.Muni Ellamma
2.Murugesan
3.Rajappa
4.Muniyappa @ Beesappa
5.Syla
6.Rajappa
7.Loganath ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Krishnagiri (Crime No.16 of 2019).
2.N.Lokesh Reddy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to cal for the records in C.C.No.5 of 2022 pending on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, Krishnagiri District and quash the
same.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mrs.R.Aparna
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.M.Selvam for R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 294 (b), 341 & 506(i) IPC and Section 82-A of the Registration Act, as against these petitioners.
2.The case of the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant is that his grand father Mr.Nanjundayya had purchased 78 cents of land out of 0.95 cents in Survey No.851 situated in Behapolli Village from great grandfather one Gundappa @ Late Goopalliyappa vide sale deed dated 22.02.1908 and thereafter, their family were in possession and enjoyment of the said agricultural land. It is further alleged that apart from 78 cents of land, one Nanjamma purchased 7 cents of land from the first petitioner's husband and father of the petitioners 2, 3 and 5 and others in the same survey number. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022 Out of 7 cents of land, the said Nanjamma along with others sold 3 cents of land to the father of the 2nd respondent on 18.08.1999 vide Document No.2930 of 1999. It is further alleged that the father of the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant has purchased 78 cents plus 8 cents vide sale deed Document No.3102/1969 dated 25.10.1969 and 3 cents vide sale deed Document No.2930/1999 dated 18.08.1999. The 2nd respondent and his family members were holding only 0.89 cents. In fact, the 2nd respondent is totally having 11 cents of land in Survey No.951 by way of inheritance from his father by virtue of a sale deed vide Document No.3102/ 1969 dated 25.10.1969 and 3 cents vide sale deed Document No.2930 /1999 dated 18.08.1999.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that one Shoba, who is the sister in law of the defacto complainant filed a suit for declaration and injunction in which she had relied upon the Document No.3326/ 1908 dated 22.02.1908 on the basis of which she laid her claim. However, the petitioners are not aware of the illegal transactions as they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The first Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022 respondent without even verifying these documents hurriedly filed the complaint against the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, they prays to quash the same.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
5.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the grandfather of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant had purchased 0.78 cents of land out of 0.95 cents through an unregistered sale deed document with document sheet serial No.3326/1908 with purchased date as 22.02.1908 found in the 2nd page of the document as the worth of the property is Rs.6.00 only and it is less than Rs.100/- (as per the provisions found in the Registration Act 1908 and Section 54 of Transfer of Properties Act 1882). That apart, the Document No.3326/1908 is not actually a Document Number but it is the serial number of the Document sheet (found written in the 2 nd page of the document with date as 22.02.1908). There is no compulsion to register a Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022 document for transfer of property at jurisdiction Registrar Office as per the provisions found in the Registration Act 1908 and Section 54 of Transfer of properties Act 1882. Therefore, it is a legal and valid document. However, the petitioners created the forged documents and illegally added their name in the patta and created fabricated documents and cheated even no way connected with the 2nd respondent family members.
6.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-
" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022 the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.
7.Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:
“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022 recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
8.Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows:
"9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022 Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged. ..............
13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................."
The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022
9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2022 in Crime No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
05.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Speaking/non speaking order vkr To
1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 13399 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, vkr Crl.O.P.No.13399 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7178 & 7180 of 2022 05.09.2022 Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis