Madras High Court
M.Nagarajan vs State By on 10 April, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 10/04/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.2692 of 2023
M.Nagarajan : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by
The Inspector of Police,
Anti-Land Grabbing Cell,
Tiruneveli District.
2.Mr.Grahambell
(R2 is impleaded as per
order of this court,
dated 03/03/2023 made in
Crl.MP(MD)No.3536 of 2023
in Crl.OP(MD)No.2692 of 2023) : Respondents
PRAYER:- This Criminal Original Petition has been
filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to transfer the investigation to any other agency for
proper and purposeful investigation in respect of the
petitioner's complaint, dated 16/11/2017 and forwarded by
the Special Court for Anti Land Grabbing Cell,
Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P No.33 of 2020 to the respondent
on 17/05/2021 and pass such further or other orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Petitioner : Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy
For 1st Respondent : Mr.R.Sureshkumar
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed
seeking transfer of the investigation to any other agency
for proper and purposeful investigation in respect of the
petitioner's complaint, dated 16/11/2017 and forwarded by
the Special Court for Anti Land Grabbing Cell,
Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P No.33 of 2020 to the first
respondent on 17/05/2021.
2.The facts in brief:-
The petitioner as complainant filed a petition
before the Special Court for Land Grabbling Cell,
Tirunelveli, in Cr.MP No.33 of 2020 seeking direction to
the 1st respondent police to register a case and
investigate the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The trial court, by order, dated 17/05/2021
directed the first respondent herein to make an enquiry,
and if any cognizable offence was made out, further
action was ordered to be taken as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case.
4.In pursuance of the above said order, enquiry in
the form of preliminary was undertaken by the Anti-Land
Grabbing Cell, Tirunelveli. During the course of enquiry,
the thumb impression of the petitioner's mother was sent
for expert opinion. The expert examined the above said
disputed thumb impression and the document under dispute
with that of the admitted thumb impression and found that
both were one and the same. So on the basis of the above
said report, further action was dropped. Finding that in
respect of the above said issue, a suit in O.S No.193 of
2013 was filed between the parties and later, that was
also dismissed. It was also found that it is an undivided
property. Challenging the above said final report, this
petition has been filed seeking direction to the 1st
respondent herein to conduct further investigation and
file final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.Heard both sides.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in (i)Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P &
others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC); (ii)Devendra Nath Singh
Vs. State of Bihar and others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 835) and
Union Public Service Commission Vs. S.Papaiah and others
[(1997)7 SCC 614] and would submit that when the
allegation of forgery of a particular document namely the
power of attorney deed alleged to have been executed by
the mother of the petitioner, prima facie a cognizable
offence has been made out and so the 1st respondent ought
not to have made a preliminary enquiry. He would further
submit that it is obligatory on the part of the
Investigating Officer to register the FIR and then only,
he ought to have undertaken the investigation.
7.So the question, which arises for consideration
is whether any illegality has been committed by the first
respondent in making the preliminary enquiry before
registration of the FIR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The order of the trial court on that point runs
like this:-
“3.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Lalitha Kumari case has held that if
the complaint discloses a cognizable
offence, the investigation shall
commence with registration of FIR,
however, exception to this, in respect
of following matters (I)
family/matrimonial disputes,
(ii)commercial offences (iii)medical
negligence case, (iv)cases where there
is abnormal delay/latches in initiating
criminal prosecution, for example over
3 months delay, preliminary enquiry is
envisaged prior to registration of FIR.
In this case the petitioner filed A
complainant before the Commissioner of
Police, Tirunelveli in the year 2017
and thereafter filed this petition on
29/01/2020. This court has been
approached with delay of over 3 months,
a preliminary enquiry is essential in
the considered opinion of this court.
Therefore, the SHO, ALGSC, Tiruneveli
is directed to conduct a preliminary
enquiry to ascertain as to whether the
information furnished in the complaint
reveals any cognizable offence. Such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
preliminary enquiry will be completed
within the period of 6 weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order,
as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Lalitha Kumari case-V-During
the course of enquiry is any cognizable
offence is made out the SHO, ALGSC,
Tirunelveli shall take action in
accordance with law. In case of closure
of the complaint, such as, mistake of
fact or purely civil dispute, a copy of
the closure report be furnished to the
petitioner within a week of such
closure, failing which necessary action
will be initiated against the concerned
SHO u/s 21 r/w 44 of the District
Police Act. On receipt of the same it
is open to this petitioner to workout
his remedy in the manner known to law.
The MC is directed to send this order,
original complaint and documents
herewith produced by the petitioner to
concerned SHO.”
9.So the order speaks for itself, no more
interpretation is required. The trial court was very
conscience in making the above said order. Making it
explicitly clear that the preliminary enquiry can be
undertaken by the Investigating Officer. It was rightly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
undertaken by the 1st respondent. How the above said act
of the 1st respondent in making the preliminary enquiry is
not legal could not be explained by the petitioner. It is
nowhere stated in the Lalitha Kumar's case at no point of
time preliminary enquiry should be taken and if a
direction is issued under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, it is
obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to
register FIR without making preliminary enquiry.
10.So without going into other aspects, as to how
the petitioner claims right over the disputed property,
this itself is sufficient enough to dispose this
petition.
11.The order has been duly complied by the 1st
respondent. I find absolutely no illegality. If the
petitioner is aggrieved by contents of the final report,
he can very well approach the concerned trial court
itself by filing protest petition. Without approaching
the trial court, this petition has been filed invoking
the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.The factual circumstances of this case does not
warrant any interference or invocation of the inherent
power by this court. No exceptional case has been made
out by the petitioner. Absolutely, I find no merit in
this petition.
13.In the result, this criminal original petition
is dismissed, of course, with liberty to the petitioner
to file a protest petition before the concerned court.
10/04/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.1.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Karimedu Police Station,
Madurai City,
Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.OP(MD)No.2692 of 2023
10/04/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
