Madras High Court
E.Sridharan vs The State on 31 August, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 31.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
E.Sridharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State
Rep.by its Inspector of Police
Land grabbing Wing-Team II,
Central Crime Branch
Vepery,Chennai
2. A.Stephen Prabhakar
[Impleaded as per the order
dated 30.01.2017 in
Crl.M.P.No.1297/2017] ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,to quash
the impugned closure report dated 15.11.2014 of the 1st respondent and to
consequently direct the 1st respondent to re-open the complaints dated
23.11.2012, 30.01.2013 and 06.05.2013 of the petitioner and register FIR
1/20
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
and to file final report in the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan for
Mrs.Manimegalai
For Respondents: Mr.E.Rajthilak for R1
Government Advocate [Crl.Side]
Mr.Govardhan for
Mrs.Row & Reddy for R2
ORDER
The petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned closure report dated
15.11.2014 and to consequently reopen the complaints dated 23.11.2012,
30.01.2013 and 06.05.2013 and register the FIR and file a final report on
the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's mother, viz.,
Devaki purchased a property measuring 678.25 sq.ft., at Door No.32/2B,
East Kalmandapam Road, Royapuram, Chennai from one Mrs.Geetha vide
sale deed registered in Document No.3252 of 1997 on the file of SRO,
Royapuram on 26.12.1997. After purchasing the above said property, the
petitioner's mother was absolutely in possession and enjoyment of the
same, as its lawful owner by paying all statutory charges. In fact, all the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
revenue records with regard to the above said property also stood mutated
into the name of the petitioner's mother. While so, the petitioner's mother
died intestate on 09.02.2009. After demise of the petitioner's mother, the
property was inherited by the petitioner, as the sister of the petitioner, viz.,
E.Sumathy released her share in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner
alone is in possession and enjoyment of the above said property by paying
all statutory charges till date. Originally before the petitioner's mother
purchased the above said property, which is the part of the larger extent
owned by her vendor, the remaining extent were sold to two different
persons. While so, in the month of August 2010, one Syed Ahmed
threatened the petitioner to sell the property to him. In this connection, he
had sent a sale agreement through his henchmen, but the petitioner refused
to oblige the demands of the said Syed Ahmed. While so, on 11.11.2012,
one Sathyamurthy contacted the petitioner and informed that a general
power of attorney with regard to the above said property has been executed
by one Arputhanandan, Indira Arulnesan, A.R.Shanthakumar,
S.Prabhakaran in favour of one R.A.Aslam, who in turn sold the property to
one Mohamed Ali Jinnah and thereby, threatened the petitioner to sell the
above said property without creating any hindrance, otherwise to pay huge
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
sum to cancel the above said sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner had
preferred a complaint dated 23.11.2012 before the Joint Commissioner of
Police, Chennai and the same was transferred to the 1st respondent for
further investigation. But, the respondent did not take any steps to conduct
enquiry / investigation in the above said complaint. While so, the above said
persons, influenced one Mr.Gnanasekaran, the local politician and came to
the petitioner's property with 20 rowdy anti social elements and threatened
the workers, who are working in the restaurant in the above said property
and tried to disposes the valuables in the restaurant and finally left with
warning quotes stating “if the petitioner and his tenants do not vacate the
premises immediately, they would be put to face dire consequences”.
Therefore, again the petitioner preferred a complaint dated 30.01.2013 with
the Commissioner of Police, which was transferred to the Jurisdictional
Police Station, viz., Royapuram police station, in the said complaint also no
prudent steps was taken by the police authorities.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that even after the above said
two complaints, since there was no action taken against the above said
persons, they kept on threatening the petitioner and on 05.05.2013, some
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
antisocial elements calling themselves as Advocates came to the above
property and forcibly dispossessed the tenants therein and assaulted the
employees in the restaurant who refused to oblige their demand and orders.
After chasing out all the tenants and employees in the restaurant, the said
persons started to demolish the super structure, therefore, again, the
petitioner lodged a complaint dated 06.05.2013. All the complaints of the
petitioner were transferred to the respondent. Eventhough serious
allegations and prima facie case was made out, no action was taken in the
same. Therefore, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.Nos.25985 to 25987 of
2014 before this Court directing the respondent to register an FIR and to
investigate the matters. In the said petitions, the respondent-police
submitted that the petition enquiry was conducted on two complaints out of
three, all of which are in respect to the same cause of action and the
petitioner was summoned for enquiry and his statement was recorded, after
due enquiry, dropped further action on the ground that the dispute are more
in civil in nature. On 22.09.2014, this Court disposed of the said petitions
recording the submissions made by the respondent with a direction to the
respondent to issue a copy of the closure report to the petitioner within one
week and granted liberty to the petitioner on receipt of the closure report to
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
agitate the same before the appropriate forum. Immediately, on receipt of
the above said order, the petitioner approached the respondent police for a
copy of the closure report in compliance to the above said order, however
the respondent said that the same will be sent through registered post. On
16.11.2014, as informed by the respondent, the petitioner received the
registered post, in which, the closure report which is dated 15.11.2014 was
sent.
4. The petitioner surprised to note that in the impugned closure
report, the respondent made submission that they have already conducted
enquiry and closed two complaints out of three preferred by the petitioner
before this Court on 22.09.2014 in the direction petition filed by the
petitioner, but the closure report was prepared on 15.11.2014, which is just
to cope up / overcome the submissions made this Court. The closure report
does not disclose that any enquiry or investigation on the above complaints
preferred by the petitioner was conducted and the complaints of the
petitioner were closed only on the basis of the documents submitted by the
petitioner, eventhough prima facie criminal case was made out in the said
complaints preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner stated in the grounds
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
that when prima facie criminal aspects are bluntly made out, closing the
complaints of the petitioner on the ground that it only constitutes civil
dispute, cannot be sustained.
5. According to the petitioner, the respondent police ought to have
registered the FIR on the basis of the complaints preferred by the petitioner
and should have conducted enquiry with all the persons with regard to the
illegal acts suffered by the petitioner and then, should have come to the
conclusion that the case is of more civil in nature, but in the present case,
no enquiry was conducted and simply to over come the submissions made
by the respondent before this Court, the impugned closure report was
prepared subsequent to the order of this Court without conducting
investigation. The petitioner was in occupation of the premises, as its owner
and the premises was illegally demolished by rowdy elements. On the issue
of possession there is no dispute, the same was also admitted by the above
mentioned persons and who had given the power of attorney to R.A.Aslam.
Also, the closing of complaint as a civil dispute, when the building was in
the physical possession of the petitioner was unauthorizedly demolished by
rowdy elements is incorrect. Therefore, prayed to quash the impugned
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
closure report dated 15.11.2014 of the respondent and to consequently
direct the 1st respondent to reopen the complaints dated 23.11.2012,
30.01.2013 and 06.05.2013 of the petitioner and register FIR and to file final
report in the same.
6. The learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the 1st
respondent submitted that there is no whisper about the details of the old
complaints filed by the petitioner. Since the civil suit is pending, the parties
are at liberty to agitate their grievances before the appropriate forum. By
relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in
Crl.O.P.No.13681 of 2017 etc., batch, the learned Government Advocate
[Crl.Side] has also submitted that circulars have been issued in tune with
the Lalita Kumari's case, wherein in the said case, it is observed that the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has to be sparingly used and it cannot be
used to circumvent a specific provision. The power exercised by the police
officer is executive and administrative in nature and the same cannot be
done or directed to be done by this Court. Further, in the case of Lalita
Kumari, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that after conducting
preliminary enquiry, if the police come to the conclusion that no FIR need be
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
registered, a duty is cast upon the police to furnish a copy of the closure
report to the complainant. After getting the closure report, it is open to the
complainant to file a petition under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., or private
complaint under Section 190 read with Secton 200 Cr.P.C, disclosing the
facts and persuading the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence.
Further, Section 482 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is extracted
hereunder:-
“482. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this
Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of Justice.”
7. Heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government advocate [Crl.Side] on behalf of the 1st respondent.
8. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has filed a very big typed set of
documents, which runs upto 260 pages. From the typed set of documents,
it is seen that one Barnes Paramanandam had executed a sale deed on
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
20.12.1995 to one Geetha, daughter of O.D.Rajagopal and wife of T.Ravi
aged 28 years thereby, she has become absolute owner of the house,
ground and premises, bearing old door no.24/25, Kalmandapam Road, and
presently in new door no.32, East kalmandapam Road, Royapuram, Madras
– 600 013 measuring to an extent of 1770 sq.ft., The said Geetha, on
21.03.1997, had sold the part of the property, viz., 600 square feet to one
Vasanthi. One Suganthi Arputhanadan, daughter of Paramanandam had
filed a suit in O.S.No.14055 of 1996 to declare the sale deed dated
20.12.1997 executed by Barnes Paramanandam in favour of R.Geetha as
null and void. By Judgment and decree dated 29.08.1997, the suit was
decreed in favour of plaintiff, viz., Suganthi. Thereafter, the said Geetha had
executed an absolute sale deed in favour of E.Devaki, who is the petitioner's
mother on 26.12.1997 to an extent of 678.25 sq.ft. Thereafter, the said
Geetha and her husband through a General Power of Attorney, viz., Ansar
Asharaf, on 25.11.1998 had executed a sale deed in favour of J.Vandhana
to an extent measuring 540 square feet. Thereafter, the said Geetha,
executed a deed of rectification in favour of Vandhana, to rectify the Door
No. as 32/2, whereas earlier it was mentioned as 32. The said Vasanthi
executed a sale deed on 24.02.1999 in favour of Vandhana.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
9. That apart, the petitioner had obtained a fire service license bearing
no.343/99 dated 12.05.1999 to manufacture meals and tiffins in the name of
“Muniyandi vilas” at door no. 32/2, East Kalmandabam Road, Royapuram.
The petitioner was also paying kists, property tax and a receipt was received
from the Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai regarding the same. An
order has been received from the Tamilnadu Electricity Board for the
purpose of name transfer of electricity board service connection. In the
meanwhile, on 15.05.2008, an irrevocable power of attorney was executed
by one Arputhanathan, Indira Arulnesan and Santhakumar and
A.S.Prabhakaran in favour of Aslam and the said Geetha also executed
power of attorney in favour of Aslam. According to the petitioner, all these
power of attorneys are forged documents. The said Vandhana Jayaraman
had sold the property in favour of Abbas, Abid and Mustafa by way of a
sale deed on 15.05.2008 to an total extent of 1140 square feet comprised in
R.S.No.3164/2, as per patta dated 25.01.1997. The property tax has been
paid by the petitioner and on 09.02.2010, the petitioner's mother, Devaki
died, as per legal heirship certificate, Sridharan is entitled for the property.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
10. Moreover, as per the Certificate of Encumbrance on Property,
Burnes Paramanantham and Esther Burnes executed sale deed in favour
of Geetha. Geetha and her husband, namely, Ravi had executed sale deed
in favour of Devaki, petitioner's mother in the year 1997 to an extent of 600
square feet. Geetha and her husband Ravi, again, sold the property to an
extent of 659 sq.ft.,and 669 sq.ft., to Ansar Ashraf and Vandana in the year
1999. Further, Vasanthi and Sekar executed sale deed in favour of Vandana
Jayaraman to an extent of 674 and 175 sq.ft., in the year 1999. Further,
J.D.Arputhanathan, Indira Arulnesan, Santhakumar and Prabhakaran had
executed a sale deed on 10.11.2010 to and in favour of one
MohamedAliJinah with respect to same door number, namely, old Door
no.24/25, present door no.32/2, East Kalmandapam Road, Royapuram,
Chennai – 13 to an extent of 630 square feet, which was originally belongs
to one Paramanantham. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, viz., E.Sridharan
has given a complaint on 23.11.2012 stating that he is a lawyer by narrating
all the instances and criminal conspiracy and enclosed the relevant
documents. Further, on 30.01.2013 another complaint narrating the same
set of facts was lodged to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai –
600 008. On 11.02.2013, the said Mohamed Ali Jinnah executed a sale
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
deed in favour of Ismail and Mustafa each to an extent of 630 square feet.
11. Apart from the above, on 06.05.2013, the petitioner preferred a
complaint stating that the police has not taken any action on the earlier
complaints and on 05.05.2013, the said persons, viz., Mohammed Ali Jinna,
Syed Ahmed and Aslam along with 20 rowdy elements calling themselves
as Advocates came to the said property and forcibly dispossessed the
tenants by throwing the valuables in the road, assaulted the employees and
chased them out from the property. When the tenants rushed to the
Royapuram Police Station requesting to take action, they have refused to
receive the complaint and they have started to demolish the superstructure
of the property, which was renovated by spending lakhs.
12. From the records, it is also seen that the petitioner by way of
Crl.O.P.No.25985 to 25987 of 2014 has approached this Court to transfer
his complaint dated 20.01.2013 to the file of Superintendent of Police,
Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), Guindy
Industrial Estate, Chennai and this Court by order dated 22.09.2014 had
observed that after due enquiry the police had dropped further action on the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
ground that the dispute is more of civil in nature and hence police was
directed to send the closure report to the petitioner within one week from the
date of receipt of a copy of that order. But the same was sent only on
15.11.2014 and in the closure report, among other things, it is stated as
follows:
“....nkYk; fPjh fpiuak; bgw;w gh;d!; gukhde;jj;jpd; thhpRfs; jh';fs; jhd; nkw;fz;l
brhj;jpw;F chpikahsh; vd;W chpik bfhz;lho tUtjpdhYk;. nkw;go brhj;jpd; chpikia jh';fs;
chpa rptpy; ePjpkd;wk; Kyk; brd;W epthuzk; njof;bfhs;SkhW mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;L jh';fs; bfhLj;j
g[fhh; kDf;fs; kPJ nky;eltof;if Kof;fg;gl;lJ vd;gij brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w cj;jut[g;go
j';fspd; ghh;itf;F bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ”
13. From the perusal of the documents, it could be seen that the
petitioner herein had filed C.S.No.9 of 2015 for declaration declaring the his
title to the suit property and for the consequential relief of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants therein from in any manner interfering
the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and
for relief of declaration declaring the sale deeds dated 10.11.2010 and
11.02.2013 as null and void. Pending suit, O.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2015 was
filed by the petitioner to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
therein, viz., Mohamed Ali Jinnah, Ismail and Mustafa from alienating or
otherwise encumbering the suit property.
14. Further, according to the parties, the sale deed dated 20.12.1995
executed by Barnes Paramandam along with his wife, Esther Barnes for
valuable sale consideration in respect of the property measuring an extent of
1770 sq.ft., in favour of one R.Geetha, is a fraudulent and fabricated
document. It is also stated that Barnes Paramandam obtained the said
property by a sale deed dated 28.08.1974, but factually, the said sale deed
was not executed in favour of Barnes Paramanandam and hence, he had no
valid and independent right in the said property. By misrepresentation, the
said Barnes Paramanandam has conveyed the property in favour of Geetha.
The said Suganthi Arputhanathan, daughter of Paramanandam came to
know about the fraudulent sale deed executed in favour of Geetha claiming
to be exclusive owner of the property and she had chosen to file a suit in
O.S.No.14055 of 1996 for the relief of declaration that the said sale deed
dated 20.12.1995 is invalid and null and void. The said suit was taken for
trial on merits. Though the said Barnes Paramanandam and Geetha, who
were beneficiary under the sale deed had entered appearance in the suit
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
through their advocates, they failed to conduct the proceedings and as
such, an exparte decree was passed on 29.08.1997 in O.S.No.14055 of
1996. By virtue of the same, the said sale deed was set aside and as such,
the sale deed document has no legal sanctity and consequently, Geetha
had lost her rights in the property.
15. It is to be noted that after the decree dated 29.08.1997 was
passed in O.S.No.14055 of 1996, the said Geetha had filed two
applications, viz., I.A.No.21379 of 1997 to set aside the exparte decree
dated 29.08.1997 and I.A.No.21380 of 1997 for stay of the operation of the
said Judgment and Decree. Both the said applications were dismissed on
26.11.1997 and as such, the decree passed in O.S.No.14055 of 1996
became final and no appeal has been filed. There is no existing right, title or
interest in favour of Geetha, but she had fraudulently and without disclosing
or otherwise colluding with the plaintiff had sold a portion of the said
property to an extent of 678.25 in favour of petitioner's mother, E.Devaki.
16. Also, Geetha loses the title, she clandestinely sells to Vasanthi,
Devaki and Vandhana. On 21.03.1997, sale deed was executed by Geetha
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
in favour of Vasanthi, at that time, the suit in O.S.No.14055 of 1996 is
pending. By the Judgment and Decree in the said O.S.No, the document
executed by Barnes paramanandam to Geetha, 1st defendant therein has
become null and void and the 1st respondent shall not sell the property
[permanent injunction 1770 square feet. in O.S.No.14055 of 1996, which is
dated 29.08.1997] and thereafter, a sale deed, which was executed by
Geetha in favour of E.Devaki, petitioner's mother also become null and void
on 26.12.1997. That being the case, Geetha has sold the portion of the
property to other persons, in which one of the person is petitioner's mother
and she has got no right to prosecute further.
17. In this case, it is seen that Paramanandam, is the original owner
of the entire property and he had two children, namely, Barnes
Paramanandam and Suganthi Arputhanathan, they both have equal right in
the said property. However, sale deed executed by Barnes Paramanandam
alone in favour of Geetha has been declared as null and void by the
competent court. When it is made clear in the Decree and Judgment that
the sale deed declared by Barnes Paramanandam as null and void and the
said Geetha was permanently injuncted from executing sale deed to the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
third parties, and the matter is purely civil in nature , where the title of the
property should be decided only before the civil court, the petitioner's
contention that the closure report is not as per the formalities and there is no
details about the investigation, cannot be agitated at present. Further, from
the closure report nothing could be traced and if at all the petitioner is
aggrieved, he is at liberty to work out his remedy before the authority
concerned in the manner known to law. As per the documents filed in the
typed set of papers, it is crystal clear that the initial sale deed, which was
executed by Barnes Paramanandam on 20.12.1995 in favour of Geetha
itself had become null and void, by Judgment and Decree dated 29.08.1997
in O.S.No.14055 of 1996 and since the Civil Suit in C.S.No.9 of 2015 is
pending for adjudication before this Court and whether there is a tress-pass
or not, has to be decided only by the appropriate civil Forum and hence, the
present Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Order
ssd
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Land grabbing Wing-Team II,
Central Crime Branch
Vepery,Chennai
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
Crl.O.P.No.11986 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
31.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
