Rani.Dr.M.Prasanna Natchiyar … vs The State Repsented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 9278 Mad

                                                                            Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
                                               RESERVED ON : 27.07.2021
                                               DELIVERED ON: 03.09.2021
                                                          CORAM
                                         The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.ILANGOVAN
                                              Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10030 of 2021


                     Rani.Dr.M.Prasanna Natchiyar           … Petitioner
                                                          Vs.
                     1.The State Repsented by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Anti-Land Grabbing Special Wing,
                       Tirunelveli City.

                     2.K.A.Murugappan

                     3.K.A.Shanmugavel

                     4.V.Muthuveerappan

                     5.M.Saraswathi

                     6.M.Thaiyalnayagi

                     7.M.Subha

                     8.M.Senthilnathan                     … Respondents

                     Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
                     for the records pertaining to the impugned Closure Report, dated
                     08.04.2021, on the file of the first respondent and set aside the same as
                     illegal and consequently to register the case, against the respondents 2 to 8

                     1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                              Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021


                     in the light of the order in Cr.M.P.No.1207 of 2021, dated 23.02.2021,
                     passed by the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli, under
                     Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
                                          For Petitioner   : Mr.I.Pinaygash
                                          For R1           : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                            Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                           ORDER

This petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned Closure Report,

dated 08.04.2021, on the file of the first respondent and to register the case,

against the respondents 2 to 8, as per the order of the learned Special Court

for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.1207 of 2021, dated

23.02.2021.

2.The case in brief:-

The petitioner is the legal heir of the properties belongs to Sivagiri

Zamindar, Tirunelveli District. The accused Nos.2 to 8 tried to grab the

disputed properties namely, Ganamaniyammal Chathiram, Kovil Madam,

situated at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District in S.Nos.73/1C, Town Survey

Ward Block No.16 and T.S.No.50, S.Nos.68/1, 68/4, 69/1, 79/12 and 81/1

illegally by creating bogus documents. On coming to know about their

illegal activities, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021

respondent police against them. But, the enquiry was conducted in a biased

manner and he did not register any case against them. Therefore, the

petitioner filed a petition in Cr.MP.No.1207 of 2021 under Section 156 (3)

Cr.P.C, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trinelveli, seeking a

direction to register her complaint and conduct investigation and file a final

report. By order, dated 23.02.2021, the learned Magistrate has directed the

first respondent to conduct a preliminary enquiry and if any cognizable

offence is made out, the case must be registered by following the guidelines

issued in Lalitha Kumari's case. Even the order has been passed by the

above said Court, the first respondent did not follow the order. He did not

register a case for the past four months. So, this petition is filed seeking a

direction to the respondent to register a case and investigate the matter as

directed by the above said Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases,

Tirunelveli District.

3. The matter was heard and the same was taken up for final disposal.

Since the question involved in this matter is a legal issue, notice was not

sent to the private respondents herein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 27.07.2021, the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that even though the

order has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for

Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli, due to the non co-operation of the

petitioner in producing the document with regard to the property belonging

to Ganamaniyammal Chathiram, Kovil Madam, the enquiry was closed. So,

on that ground, both the parties were heard.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would straightaway rely

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Mohammed

Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (SMT) and Another (2006) 1 SCC 627 for the

purpose of argument that when the order has been passed by a competent

Judicial Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C it is the obligation on the

part of the first respondent to register the First Information Report and

investigate the same. No choice has given to the first respondent to conduct

a preliminary enquiry. According to him, when there is a clear mandate, not

only by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, but, also the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the enquiry conducted by the first respondent, which is preliminary

in nature, is totally illegal and so, a direction must be issued is proper in this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021

petition. Whether such a contention can be accepted, is only the question

that got to be answered in this petition. This Court need not go into the

genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner to the effect that she is the

legal heir of the properties, which originally belongs to the erstwhile

Sivagiri Zamindar, Tirunelveli District. In the complaint, the petitioner has

stated that the private respondents herein, tried to claim title over the

property by creating and forging the documents and so, they must be

criminally prosecuted.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also produced the

copy of the statement, given by the petitioner, dated 09.03.2021, in the form

of letter.

7. The petition in Crl.MP.No.1207 of 2021 was heard and the order

was passed on 23.02.2021 and it is seen that the Station House Officer, the

Deputy Commissioner of Police, or the Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,

Tirunelveli, was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain as to

whether the informations furnished in the complaint reveals any cognizable

offence and the preliminary enquiry would be completed within six weeks

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021

from the date of receipt of copy of the order, as per the dictum laid down in

Lalitha Kumari's case and during the course of enquiry if any cognizable

offence is made out, the Station House Officer, the Deputy Commissioner of

Police, or the Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Tirunelveli, must take

action in accordance with law. In case of closure of the complaint, a copy of

the same must also be furnished to the petitioner within a week.

8. Reading of the order shows that option has been given to the first

respondent to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether

prima facie reveals any cognizable offence is made out. It appears that the

first respondent had conducted a preliminary enquiry and during the course

of enquiry, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced

any document to show that the property belongs to the erstwhile Sivagiri

Zamindar, Tirunelveli District. It is also noted that several persons have

attended the enquiry and stating that they are having right over the property,

which belongs to the Ganamaniyammal Chathiram, Kovil Madam. The

property in dispute is also involved in a civil suit. So, prima facie does not

reveal any offence involving land grabbing. Even though, in the statement,

in the form of letter, written by the petitioner, she has stated that she is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021

having any document to show that the property belongs to the erstwhile

Sivagiri Zamindar, Tirunelveli District.

9. It is further shown that the various properties in Palayamkottai

Municipal Area in S.Nos.73/1C, Town Survey Ward Block No.16 and

T.S.No.50, S.Nos.68/1, 68/4, 69/1, 79/12 and 81/1 in an extent of 4 hectares

and 29 cents in the name of Ganamaniyammal Chathiram, Kovil Madam,

Tirunelveli District. Tax had been paid in the name of One Ayya

Thaiyalnayagi Ammal, who was the important kartha of Ganamaniyammal

Chathiram, Kovil Madam and one Sartguna Devar, S/o.Aaseervatha Devar

had taken the said land for lease and due to the dispute arose between them,

a suit was filed by the above said Sartguna Devar, against another kartha

namely, Murugappan in O.S.No.482 of 2003 for not to interfere in the

possession and enjoyment of the property and the same was allowed by the

order, dated 06.07.2005. Similarly, another suit in O.S.No.70 of 2008 was

filed by one K.A.Murugappan and others to declare that the property

belongs to Ganamaniyammal Chathiram, Kovil Madam and the same was

decreed on 18.10.2010. Later, the property was converted into a commercial

area. So, on that ground, legal heirs of the above said Sartguna Devar have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021

tried to sell the property to various persons and they also sold some

properties and release deed was also executed by the legal heirs of the above

said Sartguna Devar. After that, one K.R.Shanmugavel filed a complaint

stating that the Ganamaniyammal Chathiram, Kovil Madam. belongs to his

mother namely, Ayya Thaiyalnayagi Ammal and several persons indulged in

creating bogus documents. So, a case in Crime No.3 of 2012 for the offence

punishable under Sections 341, 506 (i), 120(b), 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420

was registered on 03.01.2012. Final report was also filed before the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and it is pending. Similarly, the suit in

O.S.No.488 of 2011 was dismissed on the ground that no document was

produced to show that the property belongs to Ganamaniyammal Chathiram,

Kovil Madam. so, against that, the above said K.A.Murugappan and others

filed a suit in A.S.No.84 of 2019 before the learned Sub Court, Tirunelveli,

and it is also pending.

10. Observation made by the learned counsel for the first respondent

clearly shows that a thorough enquiry has been undertaken by the first

petitioner to know about the origin of the dispute and as well as the title to

find out whether any prima facie case has been made, on the basis of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021

complaint, to take cognizance for filing First Information Report. So, the

detailed enquiry reveals that there is no prima facie ground. So, such is

being the position, the contention, on the part of the petitioner that without

undertaking the preliminary enquiry, the first respondent ought to have

registered First Information Report, is clearly out of place and cannot be

accepted.

11. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in

Crl.R.C.No.249 of 2017 has been rendered much before the Constitution

Bench judgment of Lalitha Kumari's case. In Lalitha Kumari case, the

Constitution Bench has clearly set out under what circumstances and in

what nature of offence, preliminary enquiry is permissible.

12. The enquiry made by the first respondent clearly shows that it is a

fit case to make a preliminary enquiry. So, the contention on the part of the

petitioner that no option was available to the first respondent to make a

preliminary enquiry in whole is misconceived one. So, the contention of the

petitioner is rejected and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the

concerned Court through appropriate proceedings for redressing her

grievance.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10030 of 2021

G.ILANGOVAN,J.

dss

13. With the above said liberty, this Criminal Original Petition stands

dismissed.

03.09.2021

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order dss

To

1.The Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Wing, Tirunelveli City.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10030 of 2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/