Madras High Court
M.Selvamani vs The Inspector Of Police on 22 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :22.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.7305 of 2021
1. M.Selvamani
2. T.Rajkumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Sipcot Police Station
Tuticorin
2. S.Thangaraj ..Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No. 211
of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District and quash the FIR in Crime No. 211 of 2019
on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District as against the above petitioners/accused No.4 & 5.
For Petitioners : Mr.Ka.Ramakrishnan
For R.1 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R-2 : Mr.P.P.Alwin Bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/16
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
First Information Report in Crime No. 211 of 2019 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District
2. According to the petitioners the properties comprised in
S.No.113/2 of Sankaraperi Village, Tuticorin District to an extent of 1
acre 30 cents originally belonged to one Gnanami Nadar and after his
demise the property devolved to his son namely Samuel Nadar who is the
father of the defacto complainant and the above said Samuel Nadar died
on 07.03.1986 leaving behind the second respondent and his brothers as
his legal heirs. The above said Samuel had purchased the property
through a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1965 and thereafter it was
under their enjoyment and possession. The first accused who is having
the same identical name of the father of the second respondent has
created a general Power of Attorney stating that it was his ancestral
property and has derived title through patta bearing Patta No.503 and on
the strength of the patta the first accused created a general Power of
Attorney vide Doc. No.678/2018 dated 23.03.2018 for the above said
property in favour of the second accused. The second accused on the
strength of the general Power of Attorney has divided the land into plots
and sold the plots to A3 to A5. Accordingly the fifth accused/second
petitioner has purchased land to an extent of 10.68 cents through a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
registered sale deed vide document No.645/2018 dated 06.07.2018 and
the fourth accused/first petitioner has purchased a land to an extent of
10.11 cents through a registered sale deed vide Document No.646/2018
dated 06.07.2018 and thereafter they are in enjoyment and possession of
the property. The second respondent later gaining the knowledge has
lodged complaint before the first respondent police and the first
respondent has registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.211
of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420,465,467,468 of IPC and the
same is pending investigation. The above said First Information Report
registered as against the petitioners is erroneous and do not have any
iota to proceed against the petitioners and hence the First Information
Report is liable to quashed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
filed counter stating that the petitioners are wife and son of Tamilarasan
respectively who was the incumbent Sub Registrar, Pudur, Thoothukudi
District at the time of fraudulent registration and he was the master
mind of the entire crime episode. The petitioners and other conspired
together and made fraudulent document with an intention to grab the
properties of family of the second respondent. The property in S.No.
113/2 measuring to an extent of 1.30 acres situated in Sankaraperi
Village, Thoothukudi Taluk belong to the father of G.Samuel Nadar
through a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1965 and he was in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
possession and enjoyment of the same. After the demise of his father his
legal heir inherited the property by succession and sisters
Dhanapackiyam, Saroja and Selvarani executed a release deed dated
10.07.1981 and 28.04.1980 respectively in favour of their brother.
Thereafter partition suit was filed in O.S.No.53 0f 1995 before the Sub
Court, Thoothukudi and the same was decreed in their favour.
Thereafter properties were partitioned. However during the UDR the
name of the Gnanamuthu was mistakenly mentioned as Gnanamani but
the respondent did not notice the same. Infact after the death of his
father patta was not changed.
4. The above said mistake in the similarity of the same of the
father of the second respondent the petitioners in connivance with
husband created forged power of attorney dated 23.03.2018 in favour of
one Petchiraj and he had created sale deed in respect of 31.51 cents in
favour of the first petitioner who is the wife of the said Sub Registrar,
Tamilarasan and other sale deeds in favour of the second petitioner who
is the son of the Sub Registrar, Tamilarasan to an extent of 75.68 cents
before the Sub Registrar, Pudur, Thoothukudi District. The Principal of
the forged power deed namely Samuel was born on 08.03.1976 and his
age as on today is 48. Whileso his age on the date of issuance of UDR
patta must be only 11years . Thus it is clear that the mentioning of the
father's name in the patta issued during UDR is only a mistake and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
same was taken advantage by the petitioners to create the forged deeds.
Hence the second respondent preferred a criminal complaint before the
Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi and a case in Crime No.211 of
2019 for the offences under Sections 420,465,467 and 468 of IPC was
registered by the first respondent. The first petitioner's husband willfully
registered the deed fraudulently which is abuse of his official capacity
as Sub Registrar , hence at this stage this petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that the petitioners have purchased the property for valuable
consideration and they are bonafide purchasers. Based on the parental
deed in favour of his father of his vendor and after verifying the records
these petitioners after enquiry purchased the properties and they have
no intention to cheat anybody and they have not created any documents
and thereby the above said offence charged against the petitioners in the
First Information Report will not attract as against these petitioners and
the defacto complainant has no any title deed in their names and they are
the owners of the properties and these petitioners purchased the
properties for valuable consideration and thereby the offences alleged in
the First Information Report will not attract. In support of his contention
he relied on the following judgments:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
a) Mohammed Ibrahim and Others .vs. State of Bihar and
another reported in (2009)3 SCC(Cri.)929
b)Mohammed Ali and Others .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others in the case of Criminal Appeal No.2341 of 2023.
c)Usha Chakraborty and another .vs. State of West Bengal and
Others reported in CDJ 2023 SC 073
d) Randheer Singh .vs. State of U.P and others reported in CDJ
2021 SC 844.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
would contend that the second respondent and others are the original
owners of the property and the petitioners have no role over the
property. After the second respondent purchased the property in the year
1965 registered sale deed and they are in possession and enjoyment.
After demise of his father the second respondent along with his brother
and sister were in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter
the sister of the second respondent executed released deed in favour of
this second respondent. Thereafter they filed partition suit and the same
was decreed in their favour. Whileso, during the UDR scheme name of
the father of the second respondent was mistakenly mentioned as
Gnanamani instead of Gnanamuthu. Taking advantage of the same, these
petitioners created forged documents with connivance of the Sub
Registrar who is none other than the husband of the first petitioner and
the father of the second petitioner thereby he gave complaint before the
first respondent and the first respondent also registered the First
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
Information Report and the same is at preliminary stage and therefore at
this stage this petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his
contention he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Sheila Sebastian .vs. R.Jawaharaj and another reported
in(2018)7 SCC 581.
7. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for
the first respondent would contend that based on the complaint given by
the second respondent the first respondent registered the First
Information Report and it is at the initial stage. Further he also accepted
the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
9. On perusal of the records it is observed that the second
respondent had given complaint before the first respondent police and
the first respondent has registered a case against the petitioners in
Crime No.211 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420,465,467,468
of IPC and the same is pending investigation. The petitioners have filed
this petition to quash the First Information Report alleging that they are
bonafide purchasers and they have purchased the property for valuable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
consideration and they have no intention to cheat anybody and the
second respondent has no right or title over the property and he has not
produced any document to show his possession and title. However the
petitioner has all the title deeds and patta. Thereafter they have filed writ
petition before this Court in W.P(MD) No.13535 of 2022 and the same
was ordered in favour of the petitioner i.e., patta has to be transferred in
the name of the petitioner vendor. The second respondent is also a party
to the writ petition and thereby the petitioners are the owner of the
property and thereby the First Information Report is liable to be
quashed.
10. The contention of the second respondent is that he is the
owner of the property and in the year 1965 his father purchased the
property and patta was also stands in the name of his father. Due to the
error in the UDR scheme taking advantage of the name similarity the
offence said to have been committed. Since the case is at the initial stage
and so many documents involved in this case and without investigation
truth will not come out and inorder to find out the truth elaborate
investigation is required in this case. Unfortunately the first respondent
has not conducted proper investigation in this case. The registration of
the First Information Report is 2019 for the past four years the first
respondent has not investigated the case. However the averments made
in the First Information Report are serious in nature, thereby at this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
stage following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs. State of Maharastra
and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, this Court cannot
scuttle the investigation. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has relied on the following judgments:
a)Mohammed Ibrahim and Others .vs. State of Bihar and
another reported in (2009)3 SCC(Cri.)929, wherein it is held as follows:
“This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing
tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence
to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either
to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or
to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that
proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise
parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same, it should be noted that
several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of
criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even
if they also amount to civil disputes. [See:G. Sagar Suri v State of U.P.
[2000 (2) SCC 636] and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. [2006
(6) SCC 736]. Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in
mind”.
b) Mohammed Ali and Others .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others in the case of Criminal Appeal No.2341 of 2023, wherein it is held
as follows:
7. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants herein in his written submissions has
stated as under:-
“(a) The allegations in the First Information Report are not only absurd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
but also highly improbable given that the said incident allegedly
occurred in the year 2008 while the FIR has been lodged after an
inordinate delay of 14 years, that is, on 4.06.2022, which has not been
explained.
(b) It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First Information Report
is absolutely false and frivolous, and on a reading of the said FIR, the
offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 386, 504 and 506 of
IPC is clearly not made out against the Petitioners. Although the
Complainant has alleged that upon coming to know about his fraudulent
appointment as a Director of a Company, he resigned from the
Company way back in the year 2017 but no complaint during this
period was ever lodged by the Complainant. Further the name of the
said Company has also not been mentioned in the FIR.
(c) It is submitted that the Respondents have incorrectly projected the
Petitioners to be hardened criminals when the fact is that every time
the Petitioners and their family members were granted protection by
the Courts, the Police immediately registered new FIRs against them. It
is submitted that the State of Uttar Pradesh is misusing its
administrative as well as police machinery to harass the Petitioners and
their family members by registering false cases against them. Further
the State authorities have not only illegally demolished three
residential houses of the Petitioners but has also registered false
criminal cases against even those persons who stand surety for the
Petitioners and their family members in cases where bail or
anticipatory bail has been granted to them. The Petitioners are neither
members of any Gang nor are they involved in illegal mining or land
grabbing activities.
(d) It is submitted that after the change of Government in the State of
Uttar Pradesh in the year 2017, the ruling party came to power and
immediately after the change of Government the Petitioners along with
their family members were falsely implicated in more than 30 criminal
cases at the behest of the ruling party. The Petitioners are being
unnecessarily harassed by the State machinery including the Police.
Although the Respondent State is heavily relying upon the criminal
cases registered against the Petitioners and their family members to
show that they are habitual offenders but till date the Petitioners have
not been convicted by any Court of law and moreover every time the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
Petitioners or their family members gets protection (anticipatory bail or
stay of arrest) from either this Hon’ble Court or the Hon’ble High
Court, the local Police immediately registers false cases against them.
(e) It is submitted that the alleged Look Out Notice dated 10.05.2022
was issued much prior to the registration of the present FIR No. 195 of
2022 which was registered on 25.08.2022.
(f) It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First Information Report
has been maliciously instituted at the behest of the present ruling party
in the State of Uttar Pradesh to wreak vengeance and to settle political
scores with Petitioner No.3 Iqbal alias Bala as he belongs to a rival
political party and he was also a Member of Legislative Council from
the period 2011 to 2016. The Petitioner belongs to a respectable family
of Saharanpur and he is running several Charitable Institutions.
(g) The allegations made in the First Information Report do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 342, 386, 504, 506 of IPC against the Petitioners and
thus, the FIR is liable to be quashed. It is pertinent to mention that
even after the charge sheet has been filed, the petition for quashing of
a FIR is well within the powers of a Court of law [Please see: ANAND
KUMAR MOHATTA & ANOTHER VS. 8 STATE (NCT OF DELHI),
DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANOTHER (2019) 11 SCC 706 at
paragraph 14 & 16].
(h) For the reasons mentioned above, the Special Leave Petition may be
allowed and the order of the Hon’ble High Court refusing to quash the
FIR No. 127 of 2022 dated 4.06.2022 be set aside.”
c)Usha Chakraborty and another .vs. State of West Bengal and
Others reported in CDJ 2023 SC 073, wherein it is held as follows:
“10. By non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth, concealed
the existence of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants herein
before a competent civil court which obviously is the causative incident for
the respondent’s allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid offences
against the appellants. We will deal with it further and also its impact a
little later. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in
order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
based on the same the petition filed underSection 156(3),Cr.P.C., must
satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other
words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific
with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for
registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission
of the offences alleged. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent alleged
commission of offences under Sections 323,384,406,423,467,468,420and
120B,IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and
the ingredients to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore would reveal
that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential
ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. There is absolutely no
allegation in the complaint that the appellants herein had caused hurt on
the respondent so also, they did not reveal a case that the appellants had
intentionally put the respondent in fear of injury either to himself or
another or by putting him under such fear or injury, dishonestly induced
him to deliver any property or valuable security. The same is the position
with respect to the alleged offences punishable under Sections
406,423,467,468,420 and120B,IPC. The ingredients to attract the alleged
offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations
contained in the application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly
make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegation
against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The
factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of
criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further
that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and
the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In such
circumstance when the respondent had already resorted to the available
civil remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in Paramjit Batra
(supra), the High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the concealment”.
d) Randheer Singh .vs. State of U.P and others reported in CDJ
2021 SC 844, wherein it is held as follows:
33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are
being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does
not disclose any offence so far as the Appellant is concerned. There
is no whisper of how and in what manner, this Appellant is involved
in any criminal offence and the charge sheet, the relevant part
whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can be
no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be
used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of
the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal
offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There
can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may
also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see
whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of
criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in
Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above.
11.As far as judgments submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are concerned those judgments are with regard to the stage
after trial. Now this case is at the stage of First Information Report and
thereby the said judgments are not applicable to the present facts of the
case.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
has relied the judgement in the case of Sheila Sebastian .vs.
R.Jawaharaj and another reported in(2018)7 SCC 581, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“This case on hand is a classic example of poor prosecution
and shabby investigation which resulted in the acquittal of the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
The Investigating Officer is expected to be diligent while discharging his
duties. He has to be fair, transparent and his only endeavour should be to
find out the truth. The Investigating Officer has not even taken bare
minimum care to find out the whereabouts of the imposter who executed
the PoA. The evidence on record clearly reveals that PoA was not
executed by the complainant and the beneficiary is the accused, still the
accused could not be convicted. The latches in the lopsided investigation
goes to the root of the matter and fatal to the case of prosecution. If this
is the coordination between the prosecution and the investigating agency,
every criminal case tend to end up in acquittal. In the process, the
common man will lose confidence on the criminal justice delivery system,
which is not a good symptom. It is the duty of the investigation,
prosecution as well as the Courts to ensure that full and material facts
and evidence are brought on record, so that there is no scope for
miscarriage of justice”.
13. On careful reading of the said judgment it is clear that the
investigation officer is expected to be diligent while discharging his
duties and he has to be fair, transparent and his only endeavour should
be to find out the truth. In the case of hand also the investigation has not
been completed for the past four years and the same is not appreciable.
14. In view of the above discussions this petition stands
dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15. Further the petitioners are is at liberty to challenge the final
report if any filed against them. The first respondent is directed to
investigate the case in a fair manner and complete the investigation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
file final report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
22.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Sipcot Police Station
Tuticorin
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13998 of 2021
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
