Madras High Court
K. Nandhakumar vs The State Rep. By on 28 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No. 33029 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.18217 of 2019
and
Contempt Petition No.2338 of 2022
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019:-
K. Nandhakumar ...Petitioner / A2
-Vs-
1.The State Rep. by,
Inspector of Police,
Land Grabbing Special Cell,
District Crime Branch,
Thiruvallur District. ... Respondent / Complainant
2.Ezhil Arasan ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings
in F.I.R.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the District Crime Branch Land
Grabbing Cell, Thiruvallur District and to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
Cont.P.No.1078/2020
K. Nandha Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Mr. Sethupathi
Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Land Grabbing Cell, Thiruvallur.
Now presently working at
Inspector of Police
Arakonam Taluk Police Station
Arakonam, Ranipet District,
Pin : 631 001 ...
Respondent
Prayer : - This petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated
06.12.2019 passed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.18217 of 2019 in
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Sasikumar,
in both petitions
For R1 : Mr. A. Damodaran,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
in both petitioner
For R2 : No appearance
in Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/12
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
First Information Report in Crime No.14 of 2019 on the file of the
District Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Thiruvallur District, for the
alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
2. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the petitioner
had made a false claim of title in respect of a land belonging to the
defacto complainant; that the defacto complainant purchased the land
from the legal heirs of one Lakshmiammal by Sale Deed dated
27.10.2011; that thereafter the patta was also transferred in the name of
the defacto complainant in respect of 42 cents by the proceedings dated
09.01.2012; that subsequently, the 1st accused who happens to be the
father of the defacto complainant, in order to grab the property belonging
to the said Lakshmiammal had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of
the petitioner herein by Document No.705 of 2007 dated 02.02.2007;
that the document was created only to grab the property belonging to the
defacto complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a
property dispute between the petitioner / A2, who is the son of the 2 nd
wife of A1 and the defacto complainant who is the son of the 1st wife of
A1; that the said civil dispute is sought to be given a criminal colour; that
admittedly there is no forgery of any document; that even, if the
allegations are accepted to be true, it would only be a false claim of title
and execution of Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner by A1; and
that the case is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohammad Ibrahim vs. The State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court
had granted an order of interim stay of further investigation in the
impugned FIR dated 06.12.2019. Thereafter, it was extended on
27.01.2020. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent who were aware of the
interim order passed by this Court had filed the final report on
31.12.2019, which was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Special Court for Land Grabbing Case, Thiruvallur in C.C.No.55 of
2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted therefore that the
1st respondent is guilty of contempt and the petitioner had filed the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
contempt petition in Cont.P.No.2388 of 2022.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted
there are allegations in the final report, which was filed pursuant to the
impugned FIR and hence the proceedings need not be quashed.
6. Since the final report has been filed on the basis of the impugned
FIR, this Court is inclined to go into the allegations in the final report to
ascertain whether any offence is made out. It is seen from the allegations
in the final report that the disputed property originally belonged to one
Lakshmiammal. The defacto complainant had purchased the property
from the said Lakshmiammal by the Sale Deed dated 27.10.2011. The
allegation is that in respect of the same property, the defacto
complainant's father (A1) in order to grab the property had executed the
Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner for 22 cents out of 42 cents of
the disputed property and thus the accused had committed the offences
under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.
7. This Court on perusal of the final report finds that the only
allegation is that in respect of the property belonging to the defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
complainant, the defacto complainant's father / A1 had executed a
Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner, who is the 2 nd wife son of A1.
It is also seen that earlier the father had settled 10 cents in respect of
same property in favour of the defacto complainant. Subsequently, it is
alleged that the defacto complainant realizing that A1 had no title had
purchased the disputed property from Lakshmiammal. This Court finds,
that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, the offences are not
made out, as it is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Mohammad Ibrahim vs. The State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751. The
relevant observations are extracted hereunder.
“16. There is a fundamental
difference between a person executing a
sale deed claiming that the property
conveyed is his property, and a person
executing a sale deed by impersonating
the owner or falsely claiming to be
authorised or empowered by the owner, to
execute the deed on owner's behalf. When
a person executes a document conveying a
property describing it as his, there are
two possibilities. The first is that he bona
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
fide believes that the property actually
belongs to him. The second is that he may
be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it
to be his even though he knows that it is
not his property. But to fall under first
category of "false documents", it is not
sufficient that a document has been made
or executed dishonestly or fraudulently.
There is a further requirement that it
should have been made with the intention
of causing it to be believed that such
document was made or executed by, or by
the authority of a person, by whom or by
whose authority he knows that it was not
made or executed.
17. When a document is executed by
a person claiming a property which is not
his, he is not claiming that he is someone
else nor is he claiming that he is
authorised by someone else. Therefore,
execution of such document (purporting to
convey some property of which he is not
the owner) is not execution of a false
document as defined under Section 464 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
the Code. If what is executed is not a false
document, there is no forgery. If there is
no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor
Section 471 of the Code are attracted.
...
20. When a sale deed is executed
conveying a property claiming ownership
thereto, it may be possible for the
purchaser under such sale deed, to allege
that the vendor has cheated him by
making a false representation of
ownership and fraudulently induced him
to part with the sale consideration. But in
this case the complaint is not by the
purchaser. On the other hand, the
purchaser is made a co-accused.
21.It is not the case of the
complainant that any of the accused tried
to deceive him either by making a false or
misleading representation or by any other
action or omission, nor is it his case that
they offered him any fraudulent or
dishonest inducement to deliver any
property or to consent to the retention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
thereof by any person or to intentionally
induce him to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived. Nor did the complainant
allege that the first appellant pretended to
be the complainant while executing the
sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the first accused by the act of
executing sale deeds in favour of the
second accused or the second accused by
reason of being the purchaser, or the
third, fourth and fifth accused, by
reason of
being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor
in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the
complainant in any manner.”
8. Since it is only a case of false claim of title and no offence of
forgery or deception is made, the final report filed pursuant to the
investigation of the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Hence, this
Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
9. It is stated that the final report was originally filed before the
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi and
numbered as C.C.No.1 of 2021 and thereafter, as per the order of this
Court vide ROC No.93405/A 2021 G4, dated 19.01.2022, the said
calender case was transferred to the Special Land Grabbing Court,
Thiruvallur was and re-assigned in C.C.No.44 of 2022. Further, as per
the Memorandum of this Court vide Lr.ROC.No.93405/A/2021/G4 dated
01.10.2021 and 19.01.2022, the said Special Land Grabbing Court,
Thiruvallur closed on 19.05.2023 and C.C.No.44 of 2022 was transferred
to the District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi
and numbered as C.C.No.32 of 2023.
10. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the
learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi.
11. As regards the contempt petition, this Court finds that the
respondent police had filed an affidavit stating that it was an inadvertent
error and hence, he is tendering an unconditional apology for the same.
This Court accepts the apology tendered by Mr. Sethupathi, Inspector of
Police, District Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Thiruvallur and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
directs him to be cautious in future and not disregard the orders passed
by this Court. Hence, the Contempt Petition is closed.
28.06.2023
smv
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To,
1. Inspector of Police,
Land Grabbing Special Cell,
District Crime Branch,
Thiruvallur District.
2.The District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
smv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2019
Crl.O.P.No. 33029 of 2019
28.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
