Disposed

S.Rajendran v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC8 Dec 2015CRL OP/24056/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PETITIONER sought direction to register a case regarding alleged land fraud. COURT observed parallel complaints existed. COURT directed petitioner to produce documents for joint investigation with pending case and ordered police to inquire if cognizable offence is revealed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear with documents within two weeks for joint enquiry; police to inquire into petitioner's and Srinivasa Reddy's complaints alongside Crime No.23 of 2013.

S.Rajendran Vs the Superintendent of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.24056 of 2015

¶6

S.Rajendran ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Superintendent of Police
The District Police Office,
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch
(Land Grabbing cell)
The District Police Office,
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Inspector of Police
Land Grabbing cell
The District Police Office,
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents
Prayer :

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the third respondent to register a case based on the complaint dated 29.08.2015.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dhananjayan For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶12

This petition is filed for a direction to the third respondent to register a case based on the complaint dated 29.08.2015.

¶13

2.In the affidavit filed in support of this petition it is stated that one Byrappa has introduced one Mithun B.Sethia for the sale of the vacant lands measuring 54 cents in Survey

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

No.25/2 and Acre 1.98 cents in Survey No.29/2, both together Acre 2.52 cents situated at Lingapuram Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and both of them made the petitioner and his friends to believe that the lands are valuable properties situated in a good locality and if they invest the money on the said lands, the value will be doubled in few months.

¶16

3.It is further stated that the above said persons were dealing with the lands for more than one decade and therefore, the petitioner and his friends D.Srinivasulu, Vengaiah jointly purchased the vacant lands measuring 54 cents in Survey No.25/2 and Acre 1.98 cents in Survey No.29/2 both together Acre 2.52 cents situated in Lingapuram Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District under the sale deed bearing document no.4312 of 2010 dated 05.05.2010 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur. Whileso, during the last week of June, 2015, the petitioner and other owners came to know that their vendors have fabricated the records illegally and sold the same to them for unlawful gain. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 29.08.2015 but, till date no action has been taken. Hence, this petition.

¶17

4.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the same set of allegations a complaint was given by one Dinesh Prasad and the same was registered in Crime No.23 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, one Srinivasa Reddy lodged a complaint as against this petitioner and subsequently, this petitioner has lodged a complaint. He further submitted that if the petitioner appear before the respondent police along with all the necessary documents, the complaint given by the petitioner will be enquired along with Crime No.23 of 2013.

¶18

5.I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶19

6.In view of the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court directs the petitioner to appear before the respondent police along with all the necessary documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent police is directed to conduct enquiry on the complaint dated 29.08.2015 given by the petitioner and on the complaint given by Srinivasa Reddy along with the complaint given by Dinesh Prasad which is registered as Crime No.23 of 2013 and upon enquiry, if materials are gathered indicating commission of any cognizable offence, is directed to proceed further in accordance with law, as early as possible.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

7.With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶24

True Copy

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To
1.The Superintendent of Police
The District Police Office,
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch
(Land Grabbing cell)
The District Police Office,
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Inspector of Police
Land Grabbing cell
The District Police Office,
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.P.Dhananjayan, Advocate Sr.65999
Crl.O.P.No.24056 of 2015
rsy[co]
srg 21/12/2015

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Rajendran v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajendran v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Kishore Karan Vs State by

S.Karthhikeyan Vs the Commissioner of Police

K. Veeramani Vs State Rep. by Its

No.90 Kattavakkam Village Vs The Superintendent of Police

Thirunagalingam Vs State Rep. by

Devi Vs the Commissioner of Police