Madras High Court
M.Selvi vs State Rep. By on 28 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28/02/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.10753 and 10754 of 2019
M.Selvi : Petitioner/A5
Vs.
State rep. By
Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Virudhunagar.
(Crime No.13 of 2018) : Respondent
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned final report in CC No.224 of 2019 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and quash
the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking
quashment of the case in CC No.224 of 2019 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar as against this
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The first accused namely Chitra and the 2nd accused
namely Jansirani and the 3rd accused namely Marikani are the
relatives of the de-facto complainant. In 1980, the first
and second accused along with one Annamalaiammal and the
de-facto complainant were holding a joint property. During
the course of acquisition proceedings by the Government,
the same was taken over and the compensation amount was
granted in favour of the land-holders. So over the above
said quantum of compensation, the de-facto complainant, A1,
A2 and Annamalaiammal preferred writ petition in W.P(MD)No.
14362 of 2011 before this court. This court has enhanced
the compensation to Rs.7,28,657/-. The 1st and 2nd accused
approached the Aruppukottai Revenue Divisional Officer for
receiving the compensation amount. A misrepresentation was
made before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the cheque
was already issued in favour of Annamalaiammal with a
direction to the de-facto complainant and the accused
persons to share the compensation amount. So believing the
above said misrepresentation, the Revenue Divisional
Officer has acted in a negligent and malicious manner. The
4th accused was the Village Administrative Officer. He also
maliciously colluded with the other accused persons. On the
basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
the case was registered against five persons and this
petitioner has arrayed as 5th accused.
3,The allegation, as stated above, against this
petitioner is that without proper identification, by
colluding with the other accused, he delivered the
compensation amount to A1-Chitra. After completing the
investigation, final report has been filed alleging that
this petitioner also colluded with the other accused in
issuing the compensation amount.
4.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition came to
be filed by this petitioner mainly on the ground that this
petitioner is only acted in the official capacity and no
sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C has been obtained before
initiation of the criminal proceedings.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available
on record.
6.Straightaway, we will go to the statements, which
were given by the sharers of the above said property before
the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the petitioner
herein. In the proceedings in A2/SR.9, it has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
mentioned that the property in Survey No.50/8 originally
belonged to Annamalaiammal and three persons.
Annamalaiammal stated to be expired on 08/01/2012. So the
remaining land-holders are Chitra, Jansirani and Marikani.
In that, the above said Chitra and Jansirani appeared
before the Enquiry Officer namely the Revenue Divisional
Officer and the de-facto complainant did not appear. It has
also been submitted that the husband of Annamalaiammal also
expired and no legal heirs were available. The death
certificate of Annamalaiammal and the legal heirs are also
produced. Since the de-facto complainant did not appear
before the Enquiry Officer, advise has been sought by the
PA to the Revenue Divisional Officer. An advise has been
given stating the total amount of Rs.8,12,328/- by
deducting income tax of Rs.83,670/-. The order was issued
in the name of A1-Chitra, wife of Sundarapandian. So on the
basis of the above said advise, draft proposals were placed
before the sanctioning authority. A writ petition in
WP(MD)No.14362 of 2011 has been filed by some of the
accused persons, who were joint-holders in Survey No.
50/8B. During the course of the above said proceedings, it
came to light that the first accused, by giving false
information, has received the entire amount. So enquiry was
undertaken, on the basis of the complaint given by the de-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
facto complainant namely Sundaralakshmy. So for the purpose
of enquiry, A1 was ordered to be produced before the
Enquiry Officer. Again draft proposal has been prepared.
When we go to the draft proposal, it is seen that in
WP(MD)No.14362 of 2011, a direction has been issued to
grant compensation amount upto 29/06/2017 and a direction
was also given that the compliance report must be submitted
on or before to that date. A contempt petition in
Cont.P(MD)N.770 of 2016 has also been filed.
7.In the facts and circumstances of the case only, as
mentioned above, advise has been sought from PA to Revenue
Divisional Officer. Based upon the oral advise by the PA to
RDO, the amount was issued in the name of A1 namely Chitra.
Thereafter, the de-facto complainant appeared before the
Revenue Divisional Officer and claimed that she is also
entitled for share amount. So recommendation has been made
to file a case against A1 and recover the same, for the
purpose of giving share to the de-facto complainant. This
is the factual aspect. So reading of all these things, the
petitioner did not act in collusion with the co-accused and
granted the amount to A1. Under the compelling situation
and under the fear of the contempt proceedings, such an
oral instruction has been given by the PA to the Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
Divisional Officer and the amount has been granted in
favour of A1.
8.Even though this is the factual aspect, within the
official proceedings, this cannot be disputed by the de-
facto complainant. So the official, who dealing with the
administrative file cannot be fastened the criminal
liability. It is also seen that other accused namely A2 and
A3 also appeared before the Enquiry officer and given
statements. When such being the position, absolutely, no
material is available or collected during the course of
investigation to show that the petitioner has acted in
collusion with the co-accused. Even it is taken that the
case of the prosecution on the face value, it appears that
the petitioner acted only in the official capacity and has
taken all the pre-cautions before issuing the compensation
amount to A1. Being the higher official, the sanction is
very much required in the factual situation. For that
purpose, the petitioner would rely upon the judgments in
the case of Amal Kumar Jha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
another (2016)6 SCC 734; P.Raja Vs. P.Harikrishnan (2018-1-
L.W.)Crl.)174; and P.Kali Kathiravan Vs.Ramaiah [2018(5)CTC
420].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
9.In the light of the above said judgments, as
mentioned earlier, the petitioner has acted only in the
official capacity and absolutely, there is no material on
record to show that he supported the claim of the co-
accused maliciously. So even in the basis of the sanction
under 197 Cr.P.C, the prosecution is bad in law. If at all
the petitioner can be proceeded only departmentally and no
criminality can be attached to his action. So, the present
complaint given against the petitioner is liable to be
quashed.
10.In the result, this criminal original petition
stands allowed. The proceedings in CC No.224 of 2019 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhungar is
hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner is concerned.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28.02.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 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.18260 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18260 of 2019
28/02/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
