M.Devendaran, Aged 60 Years, Vs State Rep. by

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2018

¶6

M.Devendaran.. Petitioner/Defacto complainant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State represented by,
The Sub Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Kanchipuram District.
Crime No.56 of 2014 ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section
397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chengalpet, in CMP.No.3431 of 2017,
dated 28.11.2017.

¶10

 For Petitioner: Mr.A.Suresh

¶11

 For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
 Government Advocate

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The defacto complainant is the revision petitioner

¶14

herein.

¶15

2.The defacto complainant has filed a complaint before
the respondent police by alleging the forcible execution of the
documents and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 56
of 2014, on the file of the respondent police. After
investigation, the respondent police have filed FRCS No.2 of 2016
for committing alleged offence and it was closed by stating that
“Mistake of Fact” and hence, the defacto complainant has filed a
protest petition in CMP.No.3431 of 2017 before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chengalpet. After consideration of the

¶16

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

¶17

facts and circumstances, the learned Judge had rejected the
protest petition and accepted the negative report filed in FRCS
No.2 of 2016 and hence, the defacto complainant has preferred the
present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

¶18

3.The case of the defacto complainant is that the General
Power Document No.32 of 2017 dated 03.01.2007 in favour of Thomas
S/o.Samuvel is not given for S.No.340/6 measuring a total extent
of 50 cents and the revision petitioner herein is the only person
authorized to deal with S.No.340/6 and 340/3C. Further, the said
Thomas S/o.Samuvel was appointed as power agent only for the land
comprised in S.No.339/1, 340/1D, 340/1E, 340/2B, 340/5A, 340/5B
and 340/5C measuring an extent of 2.47 acres and clearly knowing
the fact the accused namely Thomas had sold the property in
S.No.340/6 and the same was not informed to the revision
petitioner herein. It is submitted that at the time of execution
of the power of attorney deed in favour of Thomas S/o.Samuvel,
the Patta for the land comprised in S.No.340/6 and 340/3C was not
in favour of the revision petitioner herein and after clearance
of the title deeds and patta for S.No340/6 and 340/3C the
revision petitioner herein had made settlement deed in favour of
his wife viz., Rajeswari, in document No.2344/2007, dated
05.04.2007 for the S.No.340/6 and 340/3C and without knowing the
fact that the revision petitioner herein had made the settlement
deed and the accused persons had played fraud by selling the
property in S.No.340/6 and latterly the accused persons had
threatened and kidnapped the revision petitioner herein to cancel
the settlement deed which is in favour of one Rajeswari, who is
the wife of the revision petitioner herein.

¶19

4.Heard both the learned counsels and perused the
materials placed on record.

¶20

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
submit that the Lower Court had in a error manner passed the
order based on the evidence given by the Sub-Registrar,
Madhuranthagam and witness of the cancellation of settlement deed
and also failed to consider the fact that the evidence is given
only before the Investigation Officer but not before the
concerned Court of law.

¶21

6.After going through the arguments and the documents
filed by the private complainant, it is seen that the cause of
action for the case arises in the year 2007. The accused had
purchased the property by a sale deed dated 02.03.2007 and

¶22

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

¶23

thereafter sold the property to other persons and registered the
documents and that, the revision petitioner had not taken any
civil action from the year 2007. Thereafter, when the sale deed
in favour of the alleged accused is in force, the revision
petitioner executed settlement deed in favour of his wife on
05.04.2007, which appears to be illegal. After two years, the
revision petitioner himself had cancelled the settlement deed
executed in favour his wife. The Investigating Officer has
recorded the statement of the Sub Registrar of Madhuranthagam and
one Dhanasekar has also given a statement that the gift
settlement deed executed by the defacto complainant was cancelled
between 2 and 3 p.m., and the same was presented for
registration. But one Ramesh, who is the attester of the said
cancellation document, has stated that the defacto complainant
viz., Devendaran and his wife viz., Rajeswari were kidnapped
around 2.30 pm from Chengalpattu to Chennai, by a Car and
thereafter, Rajeswari was taken to the Sub Registrar Office,
Madhurantagam and thereafter, the signature were obtained from
the defacto complainant and the father of the defacto
complainant.

¶24

7.Taking into consideration the statement given by the
Sub-Registrar of the Madhuranthagam Sub-Registrar Office, the
Trial Court has rendered a finding that the allegation made by
the complainant is appear to be more doubtful. Furthermore, the
allegation made in the said complaint was made after two years of
the alleged incident, which strengthen the suspicion. The sale
deed in favour of the accused was executed in the year 2007,
while the same was in force, the defacto complainant has settled
the property on 05.04.2007 by way of sale deed in the name of his
wife. Two years thereafter, he has cancelled the settlement
deed, which was executed in favour of his wife and two years
thereafter the present complaint has been filed. In other words,
sale deed in favour of the accused was in the year 2007 and in
the year 2009 the settlement executed by the defacto complainant
in favour of his wife was cancelled. The allegation is that the
cancellation of the settlement deed was committed in coercion by
kidnapping the family of the defacto complainant. After giving
complaint in the year 2011, there was a compromise entered
between the parties and based upon the compromise further
proceedings were stopped. Again in the year 2014, another
complaint was given for the same incident and hence, the
Investigating Officer has closed the case as mistake of fact and

¶25

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

¶26

accordingly filed negative report. Since the negative report is
based upon the factual position, regarding the sale deed in the
year 2007; settlement deed in the year 2007; cancellation of the
settlement deed on 11.09.2011; complaint on 10.11.2011 and
subsequently, compromise took place between the parties and again
another complaint was given. The learned Judicial Magistrate has
stated that negative report is acceptable and accordingly
accepted the negative report in the referred charge sheet and
dismissed the protest petition.

¶27

8.The contention of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner is that the statement given by the Sub-Registrar
before the Investigating Officer cannot be relied upon.

¶28

9.Based on the statement of the Registrar of the Sub
Registration Office of Madhuranthagam for discharging of his
official duty, this Court does not find any error in the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The contentions made
by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner stands
negatived.

¶29

10.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands
dismissed. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.2, Chengalpet, in CMP.No.3431 of 2017, dated 28.11.2017, is
hereby confirmed.

¶30

 Sd/-

¶31

 Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

dua

¶35

To

¶36

1.The Sub Inspector of Police,

¶37

 District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram District.

¶38

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chengalpet.

¶39

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶40

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2018

¶41

VBM(CO)
SB(01/10/2021)

¶42

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

M.Devendaran, Aged 60 Years, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Devendaran, Aged 60 Years, v. State Rep. by

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

Philip Mani Modayil, Vs State

Moses Jaya Kumar, Vs State

Akthar @ Akthar Basha Vs State by

Gunalan Subbhaiyan Vs Tamilarasi

L.Jaishankar, Aged 44 Years Vs Mohan Harinath

P.Gajendran Vs the Deputy Commissioner of