Madras High Court
Dhanraj vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 October, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2705 & 2706 of 2018
Dhanraj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Land Forgery XVIII Team,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai-6.
(X.Cr.No.570/2006)
2. A.J.Samuel .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in
CC.No.8080 of 2006 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramasamy
Senior Advocate
For Mr.C.Balasubramanian
For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap R1
Public Prosecutor
Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj R2
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to call for the entire
records in CC.No.8080 of 2006 pending on the file of the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, quash the same.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The subject property was initially owned by one American Baptist
Foreign Mission Society (ABFMS). Subsequently, the said property sought
to be transferred in favour of the Property Association of Baptist Church
Private Limited (PABC) under a scheme of amalgamation. The company
petition was also filed in such regard before this Court. The scheme of
amalgamation was permitted and accordingly, the property belonging to the
ABFMS was transferred to the PABC. The petitioner had entered into a sale
agreement with the PABC in respect of such property on 20.08.1996. The
PABC has executed a lease deed dated 20.02.2003 in favour of the
petitioner for a period of 30 years in respect of the property. The said lease
deed dated 20.02.2003 registered as document No.37/2003 in the office of
the Sub Registrar, Periamet. As per the terms of the lease deed, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
petitioner was permitted to demolish the existing building and put up a new
construction.
3. While the matter stood thus, a civil suit came to be filed before this
Court praying for a scheme to be prepared for administering PABC Limited
and the suit is still pending. In the said suit, several interim orders relating
to alienation of properties were passed and in one such Contempt Petition
namely C.P.No.441 of 2003, the petitioner filed Sub Application
No.181/2006 in Cont. Pet. No.250 of 2006 praying for modification of the
earlier order dated 02.08.2006 which alienation of the properties. By order
dated 15.09.2006, this Court modified the earlier order is as follows:-
''4.3. Accordingly, the order dated 02.08.2006 is
clarified as follows:
The orders dated 17.06.2006 and 02.08.2006 will not
be applicable in the case of sale executed prior to
25.07.2000 and the mortgage, lease etc., executed prior to
27.06.2003.
The orders dated 17.06.2006 and 02.08.2006 stands
modified to the above effect. The above Sub-Application is
ordered accordingly.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
4. While the matter stood thus, the defacto complainant claiming
to be a representative of ABFMS, filed a private complaint against the
petitioner, which was registered in Crime No.570 of 2006. The respondent
police, after due investigation, filed a final report, which was taken on file
by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.12.2006. In
the final report, the petitioner was shown as second accused and offences
alleged against him are Sections 420, 468, 47 read with 120 B of IPC.
Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present
original petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the
materials available on record.
6. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court records
that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law where a property
that was properly conveyed from one religious institution to another and
which was taken possession after accepting the relevant deeds as per the law
was sought to be unsettled on the basis of a frivolous and vexatious
complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
7. The manner in which the property was taken possession of by
the petitioner is crystal clear. The property was initially held by the
ABFMS. By making proper application before this Court for amalgamation,
the property was transferred in favour of the PABC. Thereafter, the
petitioner entered into a sale agreement with the PABC in respect of the
subject property way back on 20.08.1996 and had paid an advance of
Rs.1.72 Crores. Thereafter, the PABC had executed a lease deed dated
20.02.2003 which was purely registered before the Sub Registrar Office,
Periamet, permitting the petitioner to occupy the property for a period of 30
years. The petitioner was also granted liberty to pull down the existing old
building and put up a new construction. Thought a suit was filed praying for
a scheme to be prepared for administering the PABC and slew interim
orders were passed, resulting in Contempt Petition be filed, the rights of the
petitioner was permitted by this court by way of the order passed on
15.09.2006 as mentioned above. Therefore, the petitioner was in a legal
possession of the property. Though a suit was filed by ABFMS on the file of
the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in
O.S.No.9553 of 2010 in respect of the said property, the suit came to be
dismissed on 13.08.2015. Therefore, a writ petition was filed before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
Court in W.P.No.18148 of 2016 to cancel the building plan approval
granted to the petitioner. The Hon'ble First Bench of this Court dismissed a
writ petition observing that the writ proceedings cannot be utilise to nullify
the dismissal of the civil suit. Further, it is to be pointed out that A-3 had
filed a quash petition in Crl.OP.No.13186/2007 before this Court and a
learned Single Judge of this Court, after exhaustively dealing with the facts
of the case threadbare, had quashed the case as against A-3, the petitioner
herein. Since A-1 and A-2 had not come before the Court seeking
quashment, the Court had directed the trial to proceed against them.
8. Further, as pointed out by this Court supra, the petitioner in the
present case, who is arrayed as A-2 also stands on the same ffoting as that of
A-3 and, therefore, the benefit of the judgment in Crl.OP.No.13186 of 2007
should also enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein.
9. After exhausting all ways and means to disturb the possession
of the petitioner, the present complaint has been filed. As narrated above,
the petitioner is in possession of the property only by due process of law.
The present complaint, in the view of this Court, is vexatious and the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
cannot be permitted to be sustained. The trial, if allow to continue, will be
an abuse of process of law and mere waste of precious judicial time. The
petitioner cannot also be permitted to undergo the rigor of trial.
10. Therefore, this Criminal Original petition is allowed and the
proceedings pending in CC.No.8080 of 2006 on the file of the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
27.10.2021
rli
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Land Forgery XVIII Team,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai-6.
2. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
rli
Crl.O.P.No.5526 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2705 & 2706 of 2018
27.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
