Madras High Court
A.Abdul Muneer vs The State on 16 September, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
2025:MHC:2211
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on : 01.07.2025
Orders pronounced on : 16.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.4896 and 7915 of 2025
Crl.O.P.No.7625 of 2025:-
A.Abdul Muneer .. Petitioner
Versus
The State,
Represented by Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Vasanthapuram, Vellore,
Tamil Nadu - 632 001. .. Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.11869 of 2025:-
J.Sekar Reddy .. Petitioner
Versus
The State,
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
Represented by Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Vasanthapuram, Vellore,
Tamil Nadu - 632 001. .. Respondent
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.7625 of 2025 : Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the
records in F.I.R in Crime No.6 of 2021, dated 13.05.2021 on the file of the
respondent and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in
exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.11869 of 2025 : Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the
records in F.I.R in Crime No.06 of 2021, dated 13.05.2021 on the file of the
respondent and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in
exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
For Petitioner : Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj,
(in Crl.O.P.No.7625 of 2025) for Mr.H.Rajaram
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
(in Crl.O.P.No.11869 of 2025) for Mr.Vaibhav Rangarajan Venkatesh
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,
(in both the cases) Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON ORDER
These two Criminal Original Petitions are filed by one J.Sekar Reddy
(fourth accused) and A.Abdul Muneer (second accused) with a prayer to call
for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.6 of
2021, dated 13.05.2021 and to quash the same.
2. The First Information Report in Crime No.6 of 2021 was registered
on 13.05.2021 for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 409 and 109 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was registered by the
Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Vellore. It is stated that
the preliminary enquiry, conducted on the basis of the credible information
against the accused mentioned therein, revealed the following facts:-
K.Sampath is the former Sub-Registrar of Katpadi. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
accused (petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7625 of 2025) was the Special Deputy
Collector (Stamps) during the relevant period. The land measuring about
Ac.5.88 cents in Katpadi village in S.No.474 and 550, belongs to the
accused Nos.5 to 11, they having purchased the same on 05.11.2007 vide
sale deed registered as Doct.No.9108 of 2007. They started selling the said
land as plots under the name V.I.P Garden and even sold some portions of
the said lands by mentioning them as residential plots by valuing it per
square foot at Rs.77/- per square foot and thus, selling them as plots. While
so, the third accused, E.Parasuraman, through his Power Agent, the fourth
accused, J.Sekar Reddy (the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11869 of 2025)
purchased the remaining portion of the said lands in S.Nos.474 and 550,
totally measuring Ac.5.27 cents through seven sale deeds registered as
Doct.No.8059 to 8065 of 2016 on 01.12.2016. The sale deeds describe the
land as punja lands and they had under valued the lands by mentioning the
value of the lands in each of the sale deeds as Rs.25,60,000/-. At the time of
presentation of the sale deeds, S.No.474 was mentioned as Sl.No.43 in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
guideline register which categorised as residential special type - II and the
guideline value was fixed at Rs.600/- per Sq.ft. Similarly, the S.No.550 was
found in Sl.No.45 which was also categorised as residential special type - II
and the guideline value was fixed at Rs.600/-. As per the same, the total
value of the land comes to Rs.13,72,14,000/-, whereas, the total value for
which the land was registered was only Rs.2,46,98,520/- and thus, there was
a difference of Rs.11,25,15,480/-. Under the said circumstances, it is alleged
that the first accused, being the Sub-Registrar and the second accused, being
the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) entered into the conspiracy with the
other accused so as to benefit themselves engaged in referring the documents
under Section 47A1 to the second accused, who ignoring the ground
position, valued the balance as agricultural lands per cent basis at
Rs.45,000/- per cent and passed orders so as to cause loss of stamp duty to
the exchequer to the tune of Rs.78,76,090/- and registration fees to the tune
of Rs.11,25,155/-. Both the petitioners herein now seek to quash the said
First Information Report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
3. The first contention that is made on behalf of both the petitioners is
that the order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act is an
exercise of quasi judicial power that is provided under the Act. The
authority decides the lis between the presenters of the document and the
Sub-Registrar and decides the question as to whether there is any under
valuation or not. The guideline value that is fixed is only a guideline value
and is not binding on the statutory authority. The authority is supposed to
inspect the field and satisfy himself about the ground condition and arrive at
a market value and decide whether there is any under valuation of the
instrument or not. When such an order has been passed, the same is binding
on everyone. As a matter of fact, in this case, by the order, dated
17.11.2023, the Principal Revenue Control Officer set aside the said order
passed by the second accused. As a matter of fact, C.M.A.No.6 of 2024 was
preferred on the file of this Court and by the order, dated 23.09.2024, the
said order was set aside. Therefore, once the statutory order has become
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
final, there cannot be any conclusion contrary to the same and as such, the
second accused cannot be prosecuted and consequently, the prosecution
against the other accused would also not lie.
4. The second contention that is raised is that though, in this case,
originally, there was an attempt to sell this property as plots, subsequently,
an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19566 of
2015 etc., whereby, the Division Bench had granted an injunction restraining
the authorities from in any manner registering the documents that are
presented for the purchase of plots unless the area has been converted into an
residential area by the planning authorities and the planning approval of the
lay out is being granted. With reference to the land in question, absolutely,
there is no such approval by the DTCP authorities and as per their records, it
continues to be agricultural lands. In view of the subsequent events, the
parties have not divided the land into plots, but, they continued to cultivate
the land. As a matter of fact, the village records such as adangal extract etc.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
would prove the same that the same were under cultivation. The pictures
that are taken during the inspection of the authority in the enquiry
categorically shows that the lands are being cultivated. The certificate given
by the Village Administrative Officer also confirms the same. Under these
circumstances, just for the exercise of the power that too in the year 2016,
very belatedly, the First Information Report is registered and all the accused
are being unnecessarily prosecuted. Thus, it is an abuse of process of law.
Therefore, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed.
5. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.11869 of 2025 and Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned Counsel for the
petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7625 of 2025 and Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent in both the cases. The
arguments of both the learned Counsel for the petitioners overlap and as
such, are recorded in common.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7625 of 2025
and the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11869 of
2025, would very much rely upon the photographs that were taken during
the inspection and would point out that the calculation was done as per the
actual activities done on the ground. The learned Counsels would then point
out to the F.M.B sketch with reference to the location of the land and would
submit that from the very location of the land, after railway crossing by itself
would establish that there was absolutely no pathway whatsoever and there
was no scope for converting the said land into residential area. Unless the
lands are converted into residential lands, they are entitled to cultivate the
said lands. So long as the lands are agricultural lands, the same have been
correctly valued on per cent basis by taking the market value that is
prevalent in area.
7. With reference to the proposition that the second accused cannot be
prosecuted for exercise of statutory/quasi judicial power and that the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
has become final, the learned Counsels would rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in G.L.Didwania and Anr. Vs. Income Tax
Officer and Anr. , the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ravindra
Babulal Jain and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. and that of
this Court in Thanjai Murasu and Ors. Vs. Income-Tax Officer . It is
further submitted that on the verge of the retirement, the second accused was
placed under suspension and is facing the proceedings. There is absolutely
no ground whatsoever to continue the proceedings.
8. Per contra, Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) for the respondent, by relying upon the counter-affidavit filed, would
submit that when the parties themselves have earlier sold the very same land
as the residential plots, suddenly, it is projected as if it is an agricultural land
which was blindly accepted by the second accused and thereafter, the
documents were released by the first accused. Therefore, prima facie, there
1995 Supp (2) SCC 724
2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5002
1998 SCC OnLine Mad 1393
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
is an evidence of conspiracy between all the accused. The statutory order
that is passed was sought to be reopened and was set aside by the Chief
Controller of Revenue. However, the said order was set aside by this Court
only on the ground of limitation. As such, there is no bar for the criminal
proceedings to continue. The fact that the parties have subsequently
ploughed all the land and showed as if the agriculture is being carried on
only to cheat the exchequer, is the case of the prosecution. The truth or
otherwise has to be ascertained only when the investigation is complete.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
10. With reference to the contention that the second accused acted as a
quasi judicial authority and rendered a verdict and for the findings rendered
therein, he should be prosecuted, is concerned, there can be no quarrel over
the proposition that if the quasi judicial order has become final, no allegation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
to the contrary can be made. But in this case, we are concerned with the
prayer to quash the first information report. Firstly, even if any quasi
judicial authority renders a verdict, if it is for an unlawful pecuniary gain,
then, there will not be any bar in registering a criminal case and continuing
an investigation. If it is pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, even then
investigation can be carried on. It has to be seen that only after completion
of investigation as to whether there is any evidence with reference to
obtaining of any pecuniary favour for the accused Nos.1 and 2 or whether in
any manner they colluded with the land owners for cheating the government
and resulting in undue pecuniary benefit to them.
11. Prima facie, it can be seen that 8 plots, forming part of the original
extent of Ac.5.88 cents, were sold on square foot basis as residential plots
and the remaining Ac.5.24 cents, now, is the subject matter of these sale
deeds. As stated supra, a perusal of the order passed under Section 47-A(1)
of the Indian Stamp Act, it can be seen that the second accused records that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
there is no approach road for these lands, whereas, it is the case of the
prosecution that the accused themselves have executed the settlement deed,
dated 27.10.2010 gifting the pathway in favour of the panchayat. The order
passed by the second accused does not in any manner deal with the sale
deeds already registered by the land owners themselves showing the extent
sold as residential plots. Thirdly, in this case, the quasi judicial order was in
fact set aside by a suo moto revision, however, the same was interfered in an
appeal on the ground of limitation and not on merits. The question
therefore, if the order is passed based on a conspiracy, even if the statutory
remedy of suo moto revision is barred by limitation, whether the criminal
investigation would also be barred. Unless there is bar of limitation to take
cognizance of the offence, it cannot be said that the very registration of the
first information report is barred or is an abuse of process of law.
12. It is be possible that the accused/land owners had physically
ploughed the entire land as one extent and sown punja crops overnight and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
in another 15 to 30 days, it will look as if they are all cultivable lands. As a
matter of fact, in the one set of order that is produced, it is recorded that the
land owners are cultivating thuvarai (toor dhal), kadalai (ground nut), valli
kilangu (sweet potato), whereas the photographs that are produced by the
learned Counsel, which are said to have been taken on the day of inspection,
show some field with kelvaragu (ragi) and solam (corn). It is the common
knowledge that in all these cases, when it is insisted that the photograph with
geographical co-ordinates has to be taken, the parties choose a place where
no buildings etc., will be visible and make pictures/photograph in that angle.
Therefore, photographs cannot be conclusive proof or an unimpeachable
document. Neither the adangal extract etc., can said to be undisputable with
reference to the cultivation or the lands being promoted as plots.
Accordingly, I reject the submissions made with reference to the statutory
order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.
13. The other submission made relates to merits. With reference to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
merits, the factors that are against the accused is that there is an approach
road by virtue of their own execution of settlement deed. However, even in
the settlement deed, they mentioned that they have agricultural lands on
either side and they want to take water across which is a point in their
favour. Similarly, it may be a case that they had given up their original
attempt to divide the lands into residential plots and have embraced
cultivation once again. That fact cannot be decided by this Court at this
juncture in the application for quashing the First Information Report. Firstly,
that can be looked into by the Investigation Officer and obviously, in the
Final Report, such materials have to be there that it was only a make believe
affair to cheat the Government of the stamp duty and registration charges.
14. As found supra, the photographs or adangal extract etc., cannot be
said to be an unimpeachable documents, but, a matter for consideration
during the investigation/trial. If only the Investigation Officer finds
materials in favour of the allegations, and only after due appreciation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses, a finding, one way or the
other, can be arrived at. Therefore, I am not able to conclude that the very
registration of the case against the accused is barred by any principle of law
or it is an abuse of process of law. The contention of the petitioners are kept
open to be raised before the Investigating Officer and if necessary, during
the trial.
15. With the above observations, finding no merits, these Criminal
Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
16.09.2025
Neutral Citation : yes
grs
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Vasanthapuram, Vellore,
Tamil Nadu - 632 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.4896 and 7915 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7625 and 11869 of 2025
16.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:27 pm )
