Madras High Court

M.M.Thangam vs The State Rep. By on 20 March, 2025

Author: T.V. Thamilselvi

Bench: T.V. Thamilselvi

                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No.18351 of 2022




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                         DATED : 20.03.2025

                                                    CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

                                        Crl.O.P.No.18351 of 2022
                                                   and
                                   Crl.M.P.Nos.12116 and 12124 of 2022


                M.M.Thangam                               ...Petitioner/Accused 3

                                                    Vs.
                1.The State rep. by
                The Inspector of Police,
                Central Crime Branch (CCB) – XVIII Team,
                O/o.The Commissioner of Police,
                Vepery,
                Chennai – 600 007.              ...Respondent/Complainant

                2.Mr.Joachim                              ...Respondent/Defacto complainant

                Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
                of Criminal Procedure to call for the records culminating in the impugned
                C.C.No.24 of 2021 now pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan
                Magistrate, Special Court No.II for the exclusive trial of land grabbing
                cases, Chennai and to quash the same as against the petitioner.



                1/12



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis          ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )
                                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.18351 of 2022




                          For Petitioner   :          Mr.N.Ganeshmurthy

                          For Respondents :           Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                                      Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
                                                      for R1

                                                      Mr.B.Ravi Raja for R2

                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.24 of 2021 pending on the

file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court No.II for the

exclusive trial of land grabbing cases, Chennai.

2.The petitioner is A3 in C.C.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court No.II for the exclusive

trial of land grabbing cases, Chennai. The petitioner submitted that based

on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent/Defacto complainant, the 1st

respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.378 of 2014 against 8

persons. After completion of investigation, Final Report was filed against

8 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467,

468, 471, 474 and 448 read with 120B of IPC on 15.09.2020.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )

3.The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant alleged that as a Secretary

of Centre for Human Development and Social Change, he purchased a

piece of land of an extent of 1 Ground and 1189 Square feet in Survey

No.232/1D in Kottivakkam Village, Chennai, from his vendor Siddhartha

under a Sale Deed dated 03.07.1987. Another plot belongs to Kunjiran

Kunnal Varki Kirien also was sold to them on the same day and they

became the absolute owner of the two plots. Subsequently, one Thangam

and Venkatraman made a false claim over the said plots. On verification

of encumbrance, the defacto complainant came to know by way of

impersonation, as if the original owner Siddhartha gave a Power of

Attorney to one Narasimhan in the year 2000. Based on the same, the

petitioner/Thangam purchased the property in the year 2003. Another plot

was purchased by one Chandrasekar, who sold the plot to Y.R.Gaitonda

Medical Education in the year 2008. They are all the land grabbers

fraudulently created the documents with an intention to grab the lands

belongs to the defacto complainant. On that basis, an FIR was registered

and Final Report was filed against 8 accused. The petitioner herein is the

3rd accused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )

4.After filing of Final Report, the 3rd accused approached this Court

to quash the proceedings as against her stating that she purchased the

property and she is not aware of the alleged impersonation nor she

involved any fraudulent activity. Therefore, the charges against her have

to be quashed and she prayed to quash the proceedings.

5.The 1st respondent police submitted that on the complaint given by

the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, as a Secretary in the year 1987, he

purchased the said property from the original owner Siddhartha in the year

2000 by way of impersonation, A1 along with other accused conspired and

fraudulently created the documents and thereby this petitioner also the

owner of Plot No.1 which belongs to the defacto complainant in the year

1987 itself. Eventually, the conduct of the petitioner prima facie reveals

that she also conspired with other accused and intentionally created the

Sale Deed knowing full well the property belonged to the defacto

complainant. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )

6.The defacto complainant/2nd respondent by submitting his Counter

Affidavit raised objections stating that he retired in the year 2005 and he

commenced the work as a Secretary of Centre for Human Development

and Social Change (hereinafter referred to as the CHDSC). To run the

said Institution, on 03.11.1987, he purchased a piece of land to an extent

of 1 Ground and 1189 Square feet for a valid consideration of Rs.97,200/-

from one Siddhartha formerly known as Sri George Kurian. On the same

day, Plot No.1 Lakshmana Perumal Nagar in Kottivakkam Village to an

extent of 3836 Square feet was purchased from Kunjiran Kunnal Varki

Kirien, who is the father of Siddhartha, ever since he became the absolute

owner. While so, on 12.03.2009, some of the members of the CHDSC

informed that some construction activities in the plot purchased by them.

Later, they found that by way of impersonation Plot No.1 purchased by

them was sold to one Thangam, the petitioner herein. Immediately, they

issued notice to them in the year 2010 calling upon to cancel the Sale

Deed. Notices were returned as “unserved”. Therefore, they filed a Civil

Suit to cancel the documents. Due to some technical error in payment of

Court Fee, still the Suit is not attained finality. However, the conduct of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )

the petitioner is along with other accused intended to grab the property by

creating a fraudulent document. Therefore, a complaint was lodged to the

1st respondent Police and Final Report was filed. The petitioner is also

actively involved in creating the Sale Deed in respect of the property

belonged to the defacto complainant and thereby bound to face the

Criminal proceedings. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition as no

merits.

7.The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant submitted that for

CHDSC, he purchased the land from the original owner Siddhartha in the

year 1987. Now, the said Plot No.1 situate at Lakshmana Perumal Nagar

in Kottivakkam Village in S.No.232/1D was said to be purchased by the

petitioner for a valid consideration from one Narasimhan, who is the

Power Agent of Siddhartha under a Sale Deed dated 07.04.2003. Her

contention is that neither she forged any document nor she impersonated

anyone. As a bonafide purchaser, she paid the sale consideration for the

said plot. After obtaining proper permission, she constructed the house

by availing the loan. On the same day of purchase, she borrowed the loan

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )

from the State Bank of India by creating equitable mortgage over the said

property. In order to put up a construction, she obtained a Planning

Permission on 30.01.2011 from the CMDA. Therefore, she put up a

construction after obtaining Planning Permission from the concerned

Authorities. Challenging the said Sale, the defacto complainant also filed

the Suit in the year 2012, but due to some technical errors in payment of

Court Fee, still the Suit is not attained finality. As far as the petitioner is

concerned, she purchased the Plot No.1 which was already said to be

purchased by the 2nd respondent in the year 1987. So, all the documents

are pertaining to the issues which starts from the year 1987 and 2003 and

not the recently developed documents. Moreover, the defacto

complainant/2nd respondent has approached the Civil Forum to cancel the

documents. The petitioner claimed that as a bonafide purchaser, she

purchased the property. As on date, Plot No.1 stands in the name of the

petitioner and she put up a construction after purchase, if at all the Sale

Deed is liable to be cancelled, the same could be only after the completion

of the trial. It is a Sale Deed which is in force from the year 1987 and the

petitioner said to be verified the encumbrance before her purchase and it is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )

a matter of trial. Prior to filing the complaint, the 2nd respondent has

already approached the Civil Forum to cancel the documents. Both the

parties are entitled to approach the Civil Court to prove their rights and

claim. Since the documents have been executed long back there is no

possibility for tampering the evidence at this stage. Therefore, the

proceedings against this petitioner, who is the purchaser of the property, is

ordered to be quashed.

8.The learned counsel would rely on the following Judgment in

support of their arguments:

(2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.482 – Dispute which essentials are civil in nature, filed as criminal complaints – Criminal Court's duty to check abuse of process – Held, criminal courts should ensure that Criminal proceedings are not misused for settling scores or pressurizing parties to settle civil disputes – However, civil disputes in some cases may also constrain ingredients of criminal offences – Such disputes have to be entertained notwithstanding they are also civil disputes. (Para 8).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )

16.There is a fundamental difference between a person BI 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 bonafide 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 02:00:04 pm )

owner) is not execution 1of a false document as defined under section 464 of 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 I the Code are attracted.”

9.If the vendor of the petitioner fraudulently sold the property to her

she is entitled to prosecute against her vendor. Now both the parties are

equally entitled to approach the Civil Forum. From the year 1987, the

defacto complaisant claimed his right over the property but, the petitioner

purchased the property in the year 2003. Till the disposal of the entire

dispute, there shall not be any encumbrance on the subject property.

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

The proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court No.II for the exclusive trial of land

grabbing cases, Chennai, is quashed as against the petitioner.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition are closed.

20.03.2025