Madras High Court
N.Jothi vs The State Rep. By Its on 8 January, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7182 of 2020
1.N.Jothi
2.J.Uma ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
(Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell),
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.3 of 2013)
2.Hathijammal @ Hathija Beevi ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records pertaining to the
final report and consequent proceedings in C.C.No.08 of 2019 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District for the
alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 423, 465, 468 and 471 of
IPC and quash the same as against the petitioners.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For R1 : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For L.Rs. of R2 : Mr.A.Senthil Kumar
ORDER
Challenging the final report in C.C.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District [Crime No.3
of 2013 of District Crime Branch, (Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell),
Thanjavur District)], the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.
2. The petitioners are accused 1 & 2. The second respondent/de
facto complainant preferred a complaint and the first respondent
registered FIR in Crime No.3 of 2013 against the petitioners and one
Mohammed Maideen for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b),
147, 148, 341, 420, 447, 506(i), 465, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’]. After the investigation, a
Charge Sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable
under Section 120(B), 420, 423, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
3. The case of the petitioners/A1 & A2 is that a Civil Suit was filed
by the second respondent/de facto complainant in O.S.No.5 of 2008
before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District for
declaration of title to the property situate in S.No.366/1 of Kalyanapuram
Muthal Sethi Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk and for a permanent injunction
restraining the second petitioner/A2, one S.Suresh and A.Mohammed
Mohaideen/A3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the said property. Despite the same, he had lodged a false
criminal complaint against them in Crime No.3 of 2013 as if they had
created certain documents including the Sale Deeds and Patta.
4. Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioners drew
the attention of this Court to Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Statement of
Thasildar, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District, wherein, the Thasildar
has stated that a mistake has crept in while issuing UDR Patta in favour of
the petitioners’ vendors. According to the learned counsel, in the said
circumstances, it cannot be stated that the present petitioners/A1 & A2
had fabricated the documents and that the petitioners had actually
purchased the property from A.Mohammed Mohaideen/A3 and ever since
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
the date of purchase, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the
property.
5. Mr.A.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the legal
heirs of the second respondent/de facto complainant would contend that
the petitioners had actually fabricated the documents with regard to the
property in S.No.366/1A & 366/1B of Kalyanapuram Muthal Sethi
Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk and the said property actually belong to the
second respondent/de facto complainant namely, Hathijammal @ Hathija
Beevi. He would further contend that the police after conducting
thorough investigation filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur Distric in C.C.No.8 of 2019 and therefore
prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Original Petition.
6. Mr.S.Manikandan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the first respondent would contend that the case is posted
for trial on 28.03.2024 and that there is no reason for this Court to quash
the entire proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
7. Thought it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that the petitioners/A1 & A2 purchased the property in
S.No.366/1A of Kalyanapuram Muthal Sethi Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk
from A.Mohammed Mohaideen/A3, it is not known as to whether he
verified the parent documents. In fact, in the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2008
which was filed by the second respondent/de facto complainant before the
District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, the defendants therein namely, the
second petitioner/A2, one S.Suresh and A.Mohammed Mohaideen/A3, in
their Written Statement had taken a plea that they have perfected their title
by way of adverse possession and prescription. It is not their case that
they purchased the property through a Sale Deed from A3. Thus, the plea
taken before the District Munsif is totally in contradiction to the present
plea taken before this Court. The suit in O.S.No.5 of 2008 which was filed
for declaration of title and permanent injunction by the second
respondent/de facto complainant was decreed in her favour and first
appeal in A.S.No.102 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sub Court,
Thajavur, was dismissed on 23.06.2011, as against which, a second appeal
in S.A.(MD) No.64 of 2012 was filed before this Court. A Single Bench
of this Court vide its Judgment dated 08.06.2022 dismissed the second
appeal filed by the second petitioner/A2 along with two others by clearly
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
giving a finding that the second petitioner/A2 and two others had not
proved their plea of perfecting their title by way of adverse possession and
prescription.
8. It is settled law that Patta is not a document of title and the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a change
in UDR number while issuing Patta cannot therefore be accepted for the
simple reason that Patta has been obtained fraudulently by these
petitioners. Trial is yet to commence and in the circumstances, I do not
find any reason to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2019 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.01.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
JEN
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvaiyaru,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
(Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell),
Thanjavur District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
R.HEMALATHA, J.
JEN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14995 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7182 of 2020
08.01.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
