Madras High Court
M.P.Amudha vs State Represented By on 27 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 27/04/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.14120 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.8583 of 2010
M.P.Amudha : Petitioner/A1
Vs.
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, (DCB),
Karur, Karur District.
(Crime No.14 of 2019)
2.V.Vasantha
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Karur,
Karur District. : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records in Crime No.14 of 2019 on the file of the
1st respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohan Lal
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For Respondents : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
The petition has been filed seeking quashment of
the case in Crime No.14 of 2019 on the file of the 1st
respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, has lodged a
complaint against the petitioner and others with the
following allegations:- The property situated in S.Nos.
748,779, 783, 784, 790, 793 and 797 in Thanthondi
village was acquired by the Government for the purpose of
establishing Master Plan. As per the order of the
Government in G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 03/06/1988, the above
said property is belonged to the HR & CE Department. On
04/02/2019, the compensation amount of Rs.5,14,36,839/-
was sanctioned. But the accused persons have granted
patta, by sub-dividing the property in Survey No.793 in
favour of one Saravanan and Muruganantham on 17/08/2019.
They did not obtain proper permission from the competent
authority. So based upon the above said complaint, a case
in Crime No.14 of 2019 was registered for the offences
punishable under sections 167, 409, 465, 466, 468, 471,
474, 477A r/w 34 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Seeking quashment of the same, the first accused,
who was working as Thasildhar, during the relevant point
time, has filed this quash petition.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner has made elaborate submission with regard to
the proceedings, that have been undertaken by the above
said Saravanan and Muruganandam in respect of the
property situated in Survey No.793 in Thanthoni Village.
He would straightway refer the order, that has been
passed by this court in W.P(MD)Nos.19889 of 1999, dated
27/07/2009, which was filed by Pon.Elangovan and 28
others, challenging the acquisition proceedings, that has
been undertaken by the Government which was with
reference to the Survey Nos.801/2, 801/3, 801/6, 809,
810, 811 and 812 at Thanthoni Village, Karur and the
G.O.Ms. No.452, Revenue (RAI) Department, dated
03/06/1998 has been quashed by this court. According to
the learned Senior counsel, against the above said writ
petition order, the State has filed WA.SR No.110367 of
2011 along with MP No.1 of 2013 for condoning the delay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 794 days in preferring the writ petition. That was
also dismissed by the Division Bench of Court, by order,
dated 17/02/2011. Later another writ petition was filed
in respect of the property now under dispute namely
survey No.793 by the above said Muruganandam and
Saravanan in WP(MD)Nos.1219 and 1220 of 2012.
Challenging the very same Government Order and the
acquisition proceedings in respect of survey No.793 Part.
Noting that the above said Government Order was quashed
by this court in the above said writ petition, the writ
petitions filed by the above said Muruganandam and
Saravanan were also allowed. So from these two
proceedings, it appears that the concerned land
acquisition proceedings have been quashed by this court.
Even though, it is submitted that SLP preferred, no
document is available.
6.Later in the year 2019, Sri Kalyana Venkatarama
Swamy Temple filed a suit in O.S No.14 of 2019 by
impleading the above said Muruganandam and Saravanan to
declare that the property situated in Survey No.793/1,
the total extent is 6.77 acres belongs to the Temple.
That suit was for declaration and recovery of possession.
By judgment, dated 29/03/2019, that suit was partly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decreed in respect of 1.88-1/2 Acres in respect of survey
No.793 and in respect of the other extent, that was
dismissed. Whether there was any appeal over the above
said judgment is not clear on record. So these are the
factual backgrounds.
7.Now the allegation against this petitioner is that
she issued sub-division patta orders, ignoring the fact
that the Government has approved the District Master Plan
without getting proper permission from the authorities
concerned.
8.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)
would submit that this is a mistake committed by the
petitioner. But in the light of the above said Judicial
proceedings, it is seen that the sub division patta that
was granted to the petitioner is not tainted with any
criminality. If at all the petitioner has violated any
departmental circulars or orders, the competent authority
can take departmental action against the petitioner.
9.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)
would further submit that actually departmental action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was initiated against the petitioner and she was placed
under suspension. Further proceedings is not known and
there is no evidence on record also.
10.Sub division patta was passed by one A.R.Moorthy,
by order, dated 19/09/2011. He has also referred the writ
orders passed in W.P Nos.4634 and 4635 of 2011 etc., and
the legal opinion has also obtained from the competent
authority advising the Government. But further
particulars with regard to the above said writ petitions
is not available. It appears that the property originally
was classified as Inam'. During the settlement
proceedings, patta was granted in favour of the the above
said Arulmigu Kalyana Venkateswara Swamy temple. That was
challenged in CMA No.176 of 1969.
11.But later, this petitioner appears to have
issued, sub- division patta, on 24/06/2019. It was
signed, on 13/08/2019. But in the top portion, the date
of the order is wrongly mentioned as 24/06/2019. It was
submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner did not work, on
01/09/2019. As mentioned earlier, she signed, on
13/08/2019. Apparently the order would have been prepared
on 24/06/2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.Now whatever it may be position, it appears that
various proceedings shows that no illegality has been
committed by the petitioner, while signing the order. As
mentioned earlier, if at all departmental action can only
be pursued against the petitioner. So, I find that no
criminality can be attached to the order passed by this
petitioner.
13.In the result, this criminal original petition is
allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.14 of 2019 on the
file of the 1st respondent is hereby quashed as against
this petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
27/04/2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, (DCB),
Karur, Karur District.
2.The Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Karur,
Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Note :
In view of the present
lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be
utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
Crl.OP(MD)No.14120 of 2019
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
