Madras High Court
G.Thenmozhi vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 4 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.13572 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.13572 of 2023
G.Thenmozhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Rep by the Inspector of Police,
CBCID Kancheepuram North,
Office of the CBCID, Kancheepuram
2. G.Venkatesan, S/o.Late Govindasamy,
Tahsildar, Sriperumpudur,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents.
(Cr.No.04 of 2021)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records with respect to
the first information report in Cr.No.04 of 2021, on the file of the
CBCID, Kanchipuram North, Kancheepuram, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
This petition has been filed to quash the first information report
registered in Cr.No.04 of 2021, on the file of the CBCID,
Kanchipuram North, Kanchipuram for the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 420 and 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
G.Venkatesan, who is working as a Tahsildhar, Sriperumpudur,
Kanchipuram District lodged a complaint before the CBCID,
Kanchipuram North, Kanchipuram, has alleged that the land
comprised in survey No.310/1 to an extent of 7.5 acres situated at
Beeman Thangal Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kancheepuram has
been fraudulently undergone change of patta in the name of one
Ashish J @Ashish Metha and thereby causing a loss to the tune of
Rs.33 crores to the exchequer.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner had joined in service as Special Thasildar (Land
Acquisition) in Kanchipuram District in the year 2017 with respect to
the acquisition of land for the Bangalore-Chennai Express Highway.
As per notification issued by the Government of India for acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
of land between Poonamalle to Walajapet on National Highways 4 in
expansion of six lining scheme, the petitioner had followed all
procedures as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. The
Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National
Highways, Kancheepuram passed an award on 06.03.2018. Based on
the award passed by the Special District Revenue Officer, (LA)(NH)
kpm the necessary funds for disbursement towards compensation had
been deposited by requisition body to the account of
Spl.D.R.O(LA)(NH) Kpm.
4. The learned counsel further submits that on an application
for disbursement of compensation made by Mr.Aashishmetha, the
Special District Revenue Officer (LA)(NH), Kancheepuram in the
proceedings dated 23.07.2018 had passed an order to disburse the
compensation to the account of the claimant.
5. The learned counsel further submits on verification, of
available records, it was to understood that the said Aashishmetha had
obtained an order in the year 2000 from the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Tiruvannamalai directed the Revuenue Tahsildar to issue
Ryotwari Patta in his name. It was further revealed that the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
Aashishmetha also filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.No.28923 of 2004 to issue a Writ of Mandamas directing the
Revenue Tahsildar to consider his representation to issue of Ryotwari
Patta as per the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Thiruvannamalai dated 26.07.2000. As per the order of this Court,
necessary order had been passed by the then Tahsildar and changes
had been made in the revenue records in the name of Aashishmetha.
The office of the Land Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai had
addressed a letter to the Tahsildar Sriperumpudu Revenue Taluk to
clarify the nature of the land in the name of Aashish Mehta, by his
order dated 25.11.2004. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and an
order was passed dated 20.01.2005 to issue revenue patta in his name.
Accordingly, he was issued patta.
6. While being so, upon receipt of petition from one Navakodi
Narayanan for the issuance of patta in Kancheepuram District, the
Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk,
Chennai had passed an order dated 17.03.2021. In the said order, it
had been concluded that the said Aashish Mehta in collusion with the
Assistant Settlement Officer and the then Tahsildar, Sriperumpudur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
had created forged documents for obtaining patta with respect to the
valuable government lands.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the only charge
made against the petitioner is that she had not scrutinised the record
submitted by the claimant with the records available in the Revenue
Department of the Village. Other than that, there are no allegations
made against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sought for
quashing the entire allegations.
8. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that
there is a loss to the exchequer to the tune of Rs.33,00,00,000/- with
respect to the acquisition of land for the Bangalore-Chennai Express
Highway.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the
materials available on record.
10. A perusal of records revealed that in so far as the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
is concerned, the petitioner before verifying the earlier records issued
patta, except the said allegations no other allegations as against the
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sought for quashing the entire
allegations. The entire allegations are very serious in nature as against
the petitioner. The first respondent ought to have enquired to find out
the truth, since there is a loss to the exchequer to the tune of
Rs.33,00,00,000/-.
11. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence,
which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an
encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be
quashed in its threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima
facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot
interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to
step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with
the procedures prescribed in the Code.
12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment
reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking
cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind
only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a
prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused
person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits
of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the
Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the
materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the
complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for
quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute
the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can
be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a
meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find
out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it
appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the
allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the
ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no
justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the
merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore,
the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the
allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the
ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie
made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be
interdicted.
13. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued
directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in
the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors., as follows :-
“23. ....................
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
court should not go into the merits of the allegations
in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;
.............
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused and the court when it
exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only
has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR
disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not.
The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out
a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR; .......”
14. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not
inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, considering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
the crime is of the year 2021, the first respondent is directed to
complete the investigation in Crime No.04 of 2021 and file a final
report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy
of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
04.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Vv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Kancheepuram North,
Office of the CBCID, Kancheepuram
2. G.Venkatesan, S/o.Late Govindasamy,
Tahsildar, Sriperumpudur,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:19:17 pm )
