Madras High Court

Suresh Babu vs State Represented By on 1 February, 2024

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                       Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1816 of 2022


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 01.02.2024

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                            Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1816 of 2022
                                                       and
                                       Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1328 and 1329 of 2022

                     Suresh Babu                                          ... Petitioner/A3


                                                          Vs.
                     1.State Represented by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       District Crime Branch,
                       Tirunelveli District.
                       Crime No.22 of 2006                       ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.Chidambaram                       ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the
                     learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing
                     Cases, Tirunelveli, dated 17.12.2020 and quash the same against the
                     petitioner alone.
                                     For petitioners    : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer

                                     For R-1            : Mr.S.Manikandan
                                                       Government Advocate (Crl. side)

                                     For R-2            : Mr.Suresh Manikam
                                                          for Mr.R.J.Karthick

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/8
                                                                         Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1816 of 2022


                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate,

Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's

father one Ambalavanapillai purchased the property in dispute from the

coparcener of A1, by name, Thirumalaiappa Mudhaliyar in the year 1960

for a sum of Rs.200. The said Ambalavanapillai has two sons, namely,

Gandhimathinathan and the defacto complainant and he purchased the

above property in the name of his son Gandhimathinathan. Thereafter,

the said Gandhimathinathan relinquished his rights over the above

property to his father on 22.04.1974. After the demise of his father, the

defacto complainant is in possession and enjoyment of the above

property since 1990. Subsequently, A1 conspired with A2, sold the

defacto complainant's property to A3. Hence, the second respondent

made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police. Pursuant to which,

the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2006 and the

respondent Police conducted the investigation and on completion of

investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and the learned Judicial Magistrate has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

taken cognizance in C.C.No.27 of 2009 for the alleged offences under

Sections 465, 467, 468, 420 and 120B of IPC. Thereafter, due to the

constitute of special courts, the above case was transferred to the learned

Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases,

Tiruneveli and renumbered as C.C.No.33 of 2012.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that originally the property was owned by one Thirumalaiappa

Mudhaliyar. The said Thirumalaiappa Mudhaliyar had two daughters and

one son, by name, Chellammal, Kalyani and Kumarasay. The defacto

complainant purchased the property from the said Thirumalaiappa

Mudhaliyar's daughter, viz., Kalyani and thereafter, the said Kumarasay's

son Thirumalaiyappan/A1 executed a sale deed in favour of the

petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed an

affidavit before this Court, wherein, the petitioner undertakes that he will

not continue the suit and he will not claim the property through any

process of law and already the possession is with the second respondent

and he will never disturb their possession and he will not interfere in the

possession of the defacto complainant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that

the second accused filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18170 of

2013 before this Court and the same was allowed on 06.06.2018 and

during the pendency of the trial, A1 was also died. He would further

submit that since A1 and A2 have already died, the proceedings against

the petitioner may be quashed by accepting the said undertaking affidavit

and that the petitioner is ready to give evidence before the Sub Registrar

with regard to the suit property and accordingly, he prayed for allowing

this petition.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant

would submit that this Court may record the affidavit filed by the

petitioner before this Court and issue a direction to the Sub Registrar,

Kadayam, Tenkasi District, to record the evidence of the petitioner and

remove the encumbrance in the manner known to law.

6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the

first respondent would submit that now the case is transferred to the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruenelveli and renumbered as

C.C.No.1069 of 2023.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters in

Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs.

State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on

28.01.2016, this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian

Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi

vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI

[(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab

and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under:

“11. If the offences against women and children and the IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder, attempt to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape, bribe, fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery, dacoity, abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft, preventing a public servant from discharging of his/her duty, outrage of woman modesty, counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes, etc., are allowed to be compounded, it will surely have serious repercussion on the society, as the above mentioned list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences clubbed with Special Enactment, like Arms Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, TNPPDL Act, TNPID Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. As held by the Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

themselves. This Court feels that there cannot be any compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and in that case, the Court should be very slow in accepting the compromise. If the compromise is entertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand. The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion. The antecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.

8.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering the

nature of allegations and in view of the undertaking affidavit filed by the

petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be

served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings

in C.C.No.1069 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Tirunelveli, in respect of the petitioner alone, is hereby quashed.

9.In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the

petitioner is directed to give evidence to the Sub Registrar, Kadayam,

Tenkasi District and after recording the same, the Sub Registrar shall

remove the encumbrance in the said property based on the petitioner's

evidence, since A1 and A2 also died and not in a position to cancel the

document.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the

basis of the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner. The said

undertaking affidavit shall form part of this order.

01.02.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Sji

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

2.The Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli.

3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Copy to

The Sub Registrar, Kadayam, Tenkasi District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis