Madras High Court
Janarthanan vs State Rep. By on 23 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23/02/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.11505 and 11507 of 2019
Janarthanan : Petitioner/A1
Vs.
1.State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Thoothukudi District,
(Crime No.10 of 2009) : R1/Complainant
2.Rosilin : R2/De-facto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to
the charge sheet in CC No.26 of 2013 on the file of the
learned Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Thoothukudi
and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For 1st Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking quashment of the
case in CC No.26 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court
for Land Grabbing Cases, Thoothukudi.
2.The case of prosecution in brief:-
The property in survey No.24/2 measuring about 3.20
acres belongs to one Janaki Ammal by way of registered sale
in Document No.5/1962. The total extent covered in the
above said survey is 4.38 acres. The remaining 1.18 acres
belongs to the ancestors of the accused. The above said
Janaki Ammal sold the southern 2 acres to A1. The remaining
1.20 acres were divided by partition between the children
of the Janaki Ammal. The property was allotted to Janaki
Ammal. Later, she executed a Will in respect of the
property in favour of Rosilin. A2 to A4 are entitled to
1.15 acres. Having known the above said fact, they sold
their 1.18 acres to A1. They have also included the land,
which belongs to Janaki Ammal measuring about 1.20 acres.
They have created a false and forged document. So, they are
liable to be punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
3.Seeking quashment of the above said final report,
this petition came to be filed by A1 on the ground that
after the purchase of 2 acres of land in survey No.24/2
from Janaki Ammal on 13/09/1988, the remaining 1.20 acres
belong to Suvisesamani, Salamon, Gabriel, Isravel and
Jeevarathinammal and this petitioner. The petitioner
purchased the property from the above said persons on
08/06/1993. In order to grab the above said 1.20 acres of
land, the 2nd respondent induced her mother-in-law namely
Janaki Ammal to create a forged Will and with that Will,
she lodged a complaint before the first respondent police
and the first respondent without properly conducting the
enquiry, registered a case and final report has also been
filed.
4.The 2nd respondent as a power of attorney of the
above said Janaki Ammal, filed a suit in O.S No.114 of 2010
before the Additional District Munsif, Thoothukudi for
declaration and injunction in respect of 1.20 acres of land
and declaring that the sale deed, dated 08/06/1993, which
is standing in the name of the petitioner is null and void.
After full trial, the suit was dismissed on 27/04/2016 and
there is a clear finding that the 2nd respondent failed to
establish her right over the property. Since the civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
court finding is clear with regard to the right and title
of the 2nd respondent, continuation of the criminal
proceeding is nothing, but abuse of process of court.
5.Heard both sides.
6.Straightway, we will go to the judgment of the trial
court passed in O.S No.114 of 2010. This will give more
clarity to the issue, which exists between the parties. The
preamble portion of the order is more than sufficient to
know the factual matrix. The de-facto complainant is the
daughter-in-law of one Janaki Ammal. Through her power
agent, she filed the above said suit before the Additional
District Munsif, Thoothukudi against this petitioner and
others and the prayer in that suit, is for declaration that
the sale deed, dated 08/06/1993, which was executed by the
first defendant in favour of other defendants namely 2 to 4
is null and void and for consequential permanent
injunction. As stated above, that suit came to be
dismissed. The 1st item of the suit property is noted as
3.20 acres in survey No.24/2 and the 2nd item of the suit
property is noted as 1.20 acres lying on the eastern side.
Janaki Ammal claimed that originally the properties belong
to one Ponnusamy Nadar and he executed the sale deed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
favour of Bentley and in favour of his grand-sons and he
appointed the father of the grand-sons namely Bentley as a
guardian. After the death of the said Bentley, it came into
effect. The said Janaki Ammal is the wife of the above said
Bentley. So the entire property came into possession and
enjoyment. On 13/09/1988, Janaki Ammal sold the 2 acres on
the southern side in the above said survey number to the
first defendant namely Janarthanan and the remaining 1.20
acres was in his enjoyment and title. Later in respect of
the remaining portion and other properties, a partition was
effected between Janaki Ammal and the other legal heirs on
04/08/1997 and in that partition, 2nd item in the above said
1.20 acres, now in dispute came into the possession of
Janaki Ammal by way of allotment. Even in the sale deed,
which was executed in favour of the first defendant namely
Janarthanan, four boundary has been clearly mentioned
stating that the disputed property belongs to Janaki Ammal.
It is the further allegation that for the purpose of
usurping the above said disputed property, the first
defendant appears to have sold the property to the other
defendants. So with these pleadings, the trial was
undertaken.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
7.The case of the first defendant, who is the second
respondent herein is that the disputed property never
belongs to Ponnusamy Nadar and Janaki Ammal. That property
originally belonged to Samy Nadar and Ramasukkiran Nadar
and other legal heirs. They were in possession and
enjoyment of the property. From the lawful owners, this
petitioner purchased the property on 08/06/1993. The entire
2.30 acres, which was purchased by this petitioner shows
that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment.
8.With these pleadings, apart from the pleading of the
co-defendants, both the parties went for trial. A specific
issue has been framed by the trial court as to whether the
disputed document, dated 08/06/1993 is null and void.
Actually that sale deed has been executed by the defendants
2 to 4 to the 1st defendant. But in the pleadings, it has
been wrongly mentioned that the first defendant sold the
property to the 3rd defendant. Now whatever may be, the
trial court has recorded a clear finding to the effect that
the Will, which was profounded by Janaki Ammal was not
properly proved. Apart from that, the title over the
disputed property was also not proved by Janaki Ammal.
Subsequent to the purchase made by the first defendant, she
sold the property to the 13th defendant, who in-turn sold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
the property to other third parties and several documents
have been executed subsequent to the above said sale.
Similarly because, the northern portion has been mentioned
wrongly that it belongs to Janaki Ammal. It will not create
any right or title. So when there is a clear finding to the
effect, now the case of the defendants is that it is a
clear case of forgery and creation of false documents,
which require proper investigation is not at all
acceptable.
9.The complaint, as stated above, was filed on
15/04/2009 and now the judgment of the civil court is dated
27/04/2016. Even though the complaint has been given much
before the date of the judgment, reading of the decree
shows that the plaint was presented on 19/03/2010 and one
year prior to that, the present FIR has been registered.
When there is a clear finding that the property does not
belong to Janaki Ammal, which is also binding upon the
criminal court, continuation of the criminal proceedings
will amount to abuse of process of court and law. On that
sole ground, this petition is liable to be allowed.
10.Further even if, it is taken that the petitioner
must undergo the trial process, as per the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim Vs.
State of Bihar and another [(2009)8 SCC 751], the offence of
420 and 468 IPC do not attract to the factual issue. It is
a pure case of title dispute between the parties. Since the
title has also been declared by the competent civil court,
it is binding upon the criminal court, even on the factual
issues, the offences are not attracted.
11.In the result, this criminal original petition
stands allowed. The impugned charge sheet in CC No.26 of
2013 pending on the file of the Special Court for Land
Grabbing Cases, Thoothukudi is hereby quashed as against
the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
23.02.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
To,
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Thoothukudi District,
2.The Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19689 of 2019
23/02/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
