Madras High Court
M.Kannappan vs The State Rep. By Its on 1 November, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.11.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
and
CRL.M.P.No.16037 of 2017
1. M.Kannappan
2. S.Mohan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State rep. by its
Inspector of Police,
Namakkal Police Station,
Crime No.842 of 2017,
Namakkal District.
2. N.Ponnusamy ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.842 of
2017 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manokaran
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
For R2 : Mr.D.Vairamoorthy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records
relating to the FIR in Crime No.842 of 2017 on the file of the 1 st respondent
and quash the same.
2. The 1st respondent has registered a case in Crime No.842 of 2017
against the petitioners and another person for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC on the basis of a complaint given
by the 2nd respondent alleging that on 14.08.2017 at 11.00 a.m., nearly 100
persons came to the subject matter property and committed the offence.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the property measuring an extent
of 20,000 sq.ft. comprised in S.No.475/12A corresponding to T.S.No.35,
Ward D, Block 19, was owned by Salem District Tamil Baptist Mission (SBM).
The said SBM Society passed two Resolutions dated 26.07.1985 and
24.08.1985 to sell the said property. Accordingly, the SBM society rep. by its
Chairman Mr.Paul Enoch and Secretary Mr.M.Gnanathikkam executed a sale
agreement dated 10.10.1985 in favour of the 1st petitioner for the total sale
consideration of Rs.25,000/-. An advance of Rs.10,000/- was paid on the date
of the agreement and parties therein had agreed to complete the terms of the
contract on or before 09.10.2001 in view of the existing lease till 1999 in the
name of V.K.Ramanathan and R.Jayapal. But, the vendor did not come
forward to execute the sale deed, because the above named lessees have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
clandestinely inducted one P.Karuppanna Gounder as a sub-lessee.
Immediately, after knowing the said fact, the 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.568 of
1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal, against the SBM
Society for specific performance on the basis of the sale agreement dated
10.10.1985. The suit was decreed on 29.01.1999. The 1st petitioner filed
E.P.No.77 of 1999 and got the sale deed through Court on 14.09.1999. In the
mean time, in order to defeat the petitioners' claim under the sale agreement
dated 10.10.1985, the above said Society executed a fraudulent sale deed
dated 21.07.1993 in the name of one K.Rani, who again created a false
document through her power of attorney V.K.Ramanathan in the form of a
sale deed dated 14.06.1996 in favour of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd
respondent, after purchasing the said property by misquoting the survey
number, had filed O.S.No.520 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Namakkal, to declare the earlier decree dated 29.01.1999 made in
O.S.No.568 of 1998 as not binding on him and for permanent injunction. The
1st petitioner entered appearance and filed his written statement and the suit
has been endlessly dragged by the 2nd respondent for an oblique motive.
4. The further case of the petitioners is that in order to defeat their right
and title over the subject matter property, the 2nd respondent being the
subsequent purchaser under the false document has let out a portion of the
subject matter property for running a Tasmac shop and beer bar. The said
Tasmac Shop No.5926 is located just 220 meters away from the National
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
Highways. The said shop is surrounded by row of shops, residential colonies,
besides that Kavignar Ramalingam Pillai Government Arts College for
Women, Vasan Eye Care Hospital, Thangam Hospital, Government
Veterinary Hospital and Research Centre are located within the radius of 500
meters. In view of the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
K.Balu case 2017 (2) SCC 281, the District Manager decided to relocate the
above said Tasmac Shop No.5926 from the existing place to some other
place. Accordingly, the shop was closed on 31.03.2017. Thereafter, the
District Manager was not able to locate a suitable place to carry on their
hazardous business. Hence, the District Manager has changed his decision
and decided to reopen the Shop No.5926 in the very same place. After
knowing the said proposal, the entire residents, shop owners and women's
college students have opposed the said attempt made by the District
Manager to reopen the said Tasmac shop since it would affect their well-
being. The petitioners also submitted a representation dated 30.08.2017 to
the District Collector, Namakkal, by opposing their decision to reopen the
closed Tasmac No.5926. But neither the District Manager nor the other
authorities have come forward to alleviate the grievance of the public at large.
5. It is also the case of the petitioners that 1st petitioner filed
W.P.No.24869 of 2017 on the file of this Court for the relief of mandamus
forbearing the District Collector and the District Manager of Tasmac from
carrying on liquor business in the subject matter property, and this Court, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
considering the seriousness of this issue, passed an order directing the
District Collector, Namakkal, to inspect the Tasmac Shop in question and
submit a report. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent herein has
fraudulently created a complaint against the petitioners stating that on
14.08.2017 at about 11.00 a.m, more than 100 persons including the
petitioners trespassed into the subject matter property and prevented him
from doing any work. In fact, there was no such occurrence took place in the
said place and the 2nd respondent has given a false complaint against them
with an ulterior motive to overcome the legal hurdle against them.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for R2
and the learned Government Advocate appearing for R1, and perused the
materials available on record.
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the 1st petitioner has
purchased the property in which the liquor shop is situated vide sale deed
dated 14.09.1999 through the Court of District Munsif, Namakkal, pursuant to
the decree granted by the said Court in O.S.No.568 of 1998 dated
29.01.1999. The 2nd respondent / complainant now claims that he is the
owner of the said property and he purchased the same from one Rani, who
purchased the same from the Baptist society. The 2nd respondent has filed
O.S.No.520 of 2001, to declare the sale deed executed by the Court in favour
of the petitioners as null and void, and the same is pending before the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
Munsif Court, Namakkal. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent being the
subsequent purchaser under sale deed dated 14.06.1996 has let out a
portion of the subject matter property for running a liquor shop. The
petitioners along with some other persons have entered into the said property
and abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire
consequences. Hence, the complaint has been lodged.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegation
made against the petitioners is a false one and they have not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution.
9. On going through the complaint filed under Sections 147, 148, 447,
341, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, it is seen that there are specific allegations
against the petitioners to attract the offence under the Act. Further, it is seen
that the charge sheet has been laid only after recording the statements of
complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
10. On going through the materials on record, it is absolutely made
clear that there is already a civil dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd
respondent / complainant and on account of the same, the petitioners along
with some other accused persons trespassed into the subject matter of the
property and abused the complainant in filthy language and also threatened
him with dire consequences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
11. The 1st petitioner has already filed a Writ Petition before this Court
in W.P.No.24869 of 2017 seeking a direction upon the 2nd respondent from
carrying on business in the Liquor Shop No.5926 attached in the property
comprised in T.S.No.35 (S.No.475/12A), Namakkal Town, Namakkal District,
for the reason that the shop infringes the distance Rule and it is situated
within the prohibited distance of educational institutions, hospital, etc. This
Court, after hearing the parties elaborately and perusing the materials placed
on record, had dismissed the petition on 21.12.2017. In spite of the dismissal
of the said petition, the petitioners have now come before this Court by
reiterating the same facts and there is no valid ground in the petition to quash
the complaint against the petitioners.
12. The petitioners have also relied on the judgments of this Court in
Jayakumar Vs. State and Ors and M.Nithyanandam Vs. State and Ors, in
support of their case, but the same will not apply to the facts of the present
case, because in the said two judgments, there was no civil dispute between
the parties. But, in the present case, there is already a civil dispute between
the 1st petitioner and the complainant and on account of the same, the
alleged occurrence has been taken place.
13. The 1st respondent, while preparing the FIR, has recorded a
detailed statement from the complainant regarding the alleged occurrence on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
14.08.2017 and further, nearly 10 witnesses have been examined in this
case, in which, four are eye witnesses. The petitioners have not even raised a
single ground in the petition to quash the complaint in Crime No.842 of 2017
on the file of the 1st respondent. Hence, this Court is of the view that the
complaint given by the 2nd respondent shall be proceeded before the
competent criminal court against the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty
to produce all the documents they rely upon to prove their case. The
Magistrate is hereby directed to complete the trial within a period of six
months.
14. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.11.2021
raja
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal District.
2. The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
raja
CRL.O.P.No.28225 of 2017
and
CRL.M.P.No.16037 of 2017
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
