Madras High Court
E.Kumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 November, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.5452 of 2021 & 3651 of 2022
Crl.O.P.No. 8228 of 2021
E.Kumar .... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Anti Land Grabbing Cell,
Team-XVIII,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
(Cr.No.2 of 2016)
2. N.Saravanan
3. N.Devaraj .... Respondents
Crl.O.P.No. 21082 of 2021
1. Elumalai
2. Ponnammal
3. Devi Ammal .... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Anti Land Grabbing Cell,
Team-XVIII,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
(CCB Cr.No.2 of 2016)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
2. N.Saravanan
3. N.Devaraj .... Respondents
Crl.O.P.No. 6477 of 2022
1. Lalithammal
2. Munusamy
3. Ravi .... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Team-XVIII,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
(CCB Cr.No.2 of 2016)
2. N.Saravanan
3. N.Devaraj .... Respondents
Prayer in Crl.O.P.Nos.8228 & 21082 of 2021 : Criminal Original
Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records in C.C.No.1833 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB Cases and CBCID (Metro Cases),
Egmore, Chennai-600 008 and quash the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.6477 of 2022 : Criminal Original Petition is filed
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in
C.C.No.1833 of 2020 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Trial
of Land Grabbing Cases, Special Court-II, Chennai and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/12
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
In Crl.O.P.No.8228 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jeyakumar
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Sivamani
In Crl.O.P.Nos.21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Baskar
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Sivamani
COMMON ORDER
Crl.O.P.No.8228 of 2021 has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.1833 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB Cases and CBCID (Metro Cases),
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2. Crl.O.P.No.21082 of 2021 has been filed to quash the charge
sheet in Central Crime Branch Crime No.2 of 2016 on the file of the
respondent which was taken on file as C.C.No.1833 of 2020 on the file of
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB Cases and CBCID (Metro
Cases), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
3. Crl.O.P.No.6477 of 2022 has been filed to quash the charge
sheet in C.C.No.1833 of 2020 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate
for Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Special Court-II, Chennai.
4. In C.C.No.1833 of 2020, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8228
of 2021 is arrayed as A10 ; petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21082 of 2021 are
arrayed as A6 to A8 and petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.6477 of 2022 are
arrayed as A2, A3 & A5. Since the C.C.Number is one and the same, this
Court is inclined to pass common order.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
and his family members had inherited the subject property, admeasuring
to an extent of 89 cents comprised in survey No.95/1A, Ramapuram
Village, Tiruvallur District, through his paternal grandfather. However,
the accused names were also included in the adangal extract in the
proceedings of the Tahsildar, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai vide
No.6109/94/A1, dated 02.05.1994. On the complaint lodged by the
defacto complainant, their family members names were also included in
the patta in Patta No.213-RPT No.1782/95-96 dated 06.10.1995 for the
subject property. While being so, on 16.06.1994, the accused persons,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
in order to grab the property, registered an agreement for sale vide
document No.2182/1994 dated 16.06.1994, along with one Kannan, and
obtained patta in Patta No.213-RPT No.1469/95-96 dated 27.02.1996 in
the name of tenth accused. Whereas, the earlier patta was issued in the
name of the complainant and others i.e., legal heirs of Munusamy
Naicker. Hence, the complaint.
6. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent
registered FIR in Crime No.2 of 2016 for the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 448 of IPC read with Section 120-B of
IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final
report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1833 of 2020
on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID (Metro
Cases), Egmore, Chennai.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that neither the defacto complainant nor the accused are the owners of the
subject property. The subject property was inherited by one Venugopal
Reddy through a registered Will vide Document No.16/1946 dated
21.05.1946. It was bequeathed in favour of his wife Jayalakshmi and his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
three daughters, viz., Suseela, Sulochana and Saroja. The entire property
was distributed by a Deed of Family Arrangement dated 27.09.1970. The
subject property, admeasuring 89 cents comprised in survey No.95/1, was
allotted in favour of one Saroja. She had executed a Power of Attorney
vide document Nos.616 & 617/1997, thereby one Mahendran was
appointed as Power Agent to deal with the property. In fact, after due
enquiry, the Tahsildar issued patta in favour of the said Saroja for the
disputed property vide proceedings No.Na.Ka.8274/2003/Aa2.
8. One Biman @ Jayaraj, who has no connection with the
subject property, filed a suit in O.S.No.268/1996 on the file of the Sub
Judge, Poonamallee, for partition, implicating the accused persons and
the original owners of the property and his brothers. The said suit was
decreed by a Judgment and Decree dated 14.06.2005 and thereby 1/3rd
share was allotted in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the
original owner, viz., the said Saroja, filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.38 of
2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Poonamallee. The said
appeal suit was allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court was set
aside by a Judgement and Decree dated 23.01.2007. Aggrieved by the
same, the original plaintiff filed an appeal in S.A.No.978 of 2009 before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
this Court and subsequently, the said appeal was also dismissed for
default. Even today, no application was filed to restore the second
appeal. Therefore, it is clear that neither the plaintiff nor the other
defendants are the owners of the property. It is also relevant to extract
the portion in the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.38 of 2009
dated 23.01.2009, which reads as follows :-
“gp/rh/M/14y; 1 1-2 brd;lL
; f;fhd
ehd;F vy;iyfspy; b$ayl;Rkp mk;khs;
epyj;jpw;F tlf;F vd;W Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sjhy;
rnuh$htpd; jha;f;F rh;nt vz; 95-1V jhth
brhj;ij Fwpg;gpLtjhft[k;. njtuh$;
,wg;ig kiwj;J jhth jhf;fy; bra;J
15/10/1988y; mth; ,we;jjw;fhd ,wg;g[
rhd;wpjHpid gp/rh/M/18 jhf;fy;
bra;ag;gLtjhf nky;KiwaPll
; hsh;
tHf;fwp"h; Fwpg;gpl;L 10/2/1985. 1/7/1963
ehspl;l ghfg;gphptpidfs; kiwf;fg;gl;ljhy;
ghfgphptpid nfhhpf;if epiyf;fj;jf;fjy;y
vd;Wk;. Vw;bfdnt eilg;bgw;w
ghfg;gphptpid bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd;W epWtp
fhl;lntz;o flik thjp jug;gpw;F cs;s
epiyapy; KGtJkhf eilg;bgw;w
ghfg;gphptpidfis kiwj;Jtpl;ljhy;
Rj;jkhd iffSld; thjp ePjpkd;wj;ij
mzftpy;iy vd;W bfhz;L thjpapd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
tHf;F epiyf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;Wk; Kot[
bra;fpnwd;/ bkhj;j tp!;jPuzk; 99 brd;l;
my;yJ jhth brhj;J 69 brd;lL
; f;F
brhj;Jhpik thjp 2k; gpujpthjp kw;Wk;
gpujpthjpfSf;F cs;sjhf Miz Mjhuk;
jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;gjhy; ,th;fs;
trk; RthjPdk; cs;sik epU:gpf;fg;glhky;
epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; tH';f
,ayhJ vd;w epiyapy; RthjPdj;ij
epU:gpf;f Mtz Mjhuk; jhf;fy;
bra;ahjjhy; js;Sgof;FhpaJ vd;W
bfhs;fpnwd;/ thjpf;F Vw;bfdnt
eilg;bgw;w ghfg;gphptpid 10/2/1985 kw;Wk;
1/7/1963y; eilg;bgw;wit gp/rh/M/13 Kjy;
17 kw;Wk; gp/rh/M/29 thapyhf
btspg;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sjhy; ,jid hpXgd;
bra;a ntz;o nkw;go ghfg;gphptpidfs;
bry;yj;jf;fit my;y vd;W thjp jug;gpy;
epWtp fhl;lg;glhjjhy; thjp tHf;F
epiyf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;W bfhz;L
ghfg;ghpfhuk; kw;Wk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;
fl;lis ghpfhu';fs; thjp. 2. 28 Kjy; 31
gpujpthjpfSf;F fpilf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;W
vGtpdh 2f;F jPht
; [ fhz;fpnwd;/
12/ vGtpdh 3. 4.?
1. 2 vGtpdhf;fSf;F thjpf;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
vjpuhf 24k; gpujpthjpf;F Mjuthf jPht
; [
fz;Ls;sjd; mog;gilapy; nky;KiwaPL
mDkjpf;fj;jf;fJ vd;Wk;. m/t/268-96y;
tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[ kw;Wk; Kjy;
epiyj;jPh;g;ghiz ePff
; wt[ bra;aj;jf;fJ
vd;Wk; bfhz;L 24k; gpujpthjpahd
nky;KiwaPll
; hsh; jhth brhj;Jf;F KG
chpikahsh; vd;W jPh;khdpj;J mry;
tHf;fpy; tH';fg;gl;Ls;s jPh;g;g[
jPh;g;ghizia ePff
; wt[ bra;af;nfhUk;
ghpfhu';fs; nky;KiwaPll
; hsUf;F
fpilf;fj;jf;fJ vd;W gpur;rid vz;/4f;F
jPht
; [ fhz;fpnwd;/
13/ ,Wjpahf ,e;j nky;KiwaPL
mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ m/t/vz;/268-96y;
tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[ kw;Wk; Kjy; epiyj;
jPh;g;ghiz ePff
; wt[ bra;J 24k;
gpujpthjpahd nky;KiwaPll
; hsh; jhth
brhj;Jf;F KG chpikahsh; vd;W
jPh;khdpj;J. mry; tHf;fpy; tH';fg;gl;Ls;s
jPh;g;g[ jPh;g;ghizia ePff
; wt[ bra;af;nfhUk;
ghpfhu';fs; nky;KiwaPll
; hsUf;F
fpilf;fj;jf;fJ vd;W jPh;g;gspf;fg;gLfpwJ/”
9. However, without any title over the property, one Venugopal
Reddiar executed a lease deed in favour of A1 to A9. On the strength of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
the leasehold right, the accused 1 to 9 obtained patta in patta No.213. On
the strength of the patta, they had executed an agreement for sale in
favour of the tenth accused vide document No.2182/94. Pursuant to the
same, they also executed a sale deed in favour of the tenth accused vide
document No.696/95 dated 27.02.1996. Therefore, the second accused
and the petitioners herein are not the owners of the property. However,
they are fighting for the property owned by one Saroja, who is one of the
defendant in the suit and appellant in A.S.No.38 of 2009. Therefore, all
the grounds raised by the petitioners are mixed question of facts and it
cannot be considered. Admittedly, the said Saroja is in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property. The documents produced by the
petitioners cannot be tested by this Court and it can be tested only before
the Trial Court by letting in evidence.
10. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.1833 of 2020 on the file of the Metropolitan
Magistrate, CCB Cases and CBCID (Metro Cases), Egmore, Chennai-
600 008. The personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with
and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate
applications. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The Trial Court
is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
11. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.11.2023
Lpp
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Dharapuram
2.The Inspector of Police,
Dharapuram Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
Crl.O.P.No.8228, 21082 of 2021 & 6477 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.375 & 376 of 2022
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
