Allowed

Mr.N.S.Rizwan v. Mr.Manivannan

Madras HC5 Oct 2021CRL RC/765/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision against the discharge of revenue officials, setting aside the order and directing their re-array as accused for alleged improper mutation of property. The revision regarding the bonafide purchaser (A4) was dismissed and the discharge order confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017 allowed, discharge order set aside, accused re-arrayed for trial; Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017 dismissed, discharge order confirmed.

Mr.N.S.Rizwan Vs Mr.Manivannan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 01.10.2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 05.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

CRL.R.C.NOS.765 & 766 OF 2017
AND
CRL.M.P.NOS.7036 & 7037 OF 2017
in Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017
N.S.Rizwan ...Petitioner / Defacto Complainant
Vs.
1.Manivannan
2.Chinnasamy ...Respondents / Accused A3 & A4
3.K.Tamilarasan
4.D.S.Irfan ...Respondents / Accused A2 & A1
5.The Inspector of Police,
 B1, Dharmapuri Town Police Station,
 Dharmapuri. ...Respondent / Complainant
in Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017
N.S.Rizwan ...Petitioner / Defacto Complainant
Vs.
1.K.Tamilarasan ...Respondents / A4
2.Manivannan
3.Chinnasamy ...Respondents / A2 & A3

¶6

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

¶7

4.D.S.Irfan

¶8

 ...Respondents / A1

¶9

5.The Inspector of Police,

¶10

 B1, Dharmapuri Town Police Station,
 Dharmapuri. ...Respondent / Complainant

¶11

COMMON PRAYER : These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed
under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed in
Crl.M.P.Nos.3001 & 3000 of 2014 in C.C.No.51 of 2013 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, dated
24.03.2007.

¶12

in Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017:

¶13

For R1 :Mr.G.Jeremiah
For R2, R3 & R4 :No appearance
For R5 :Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Public Prosecutor

¶14

in Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017:

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Mohamed Ziauddin
for Mr.S.M.Hameed Mohideen

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

(The case has been heard through Video Conference)

¶18

These revision petitions have been filed challenging the
order passed in discharge petitions filed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3001 &
3000 of 2014 in C.C.No.51 of 2013, by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, dated 24.03.2007.

¶19

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

¶20

2.Crl.M.P.No.3001 of 2014 has been filed to discharge A3
& A4 and Crl.M.P.No.3000 of 2014 has been filed by the A4,
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri. By an
order dated 24.03.2007, the learned Judicial Magistrate has
allowed both the discharge petitions and hence, present Criminal
Revision Cases have been filed by the defacto complainant before
this Court.

¶21

3.Heard Mr.K.M.Mohamed Ziauddin, learned counsel for
Mr.S.M.Hameed Mohideen, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner in both cases and Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel for
the first respondent in Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017 & third
respondent in Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017. Since, the remaining
parties are not represented by the respective counsels, their
names have been printed in the cause list.

¶22

4.Admittedly in Crl.M.P.No.3001 of 2014 relating to
Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017, the contesting respondents are the
revenue officials.

¶23

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
submit that in the family partition, the property was allotted
to the defacto complainant and Patta stands in his name. The
accused/A1, who is none other than the elder brother of the
defacto complainant has induced A2 and A3, who are the revenue
officials viz., Village Administrative Officer and the Assistant
in the K.Naduhalli, Taluk Office, to evade the institution of
the name in the revenue records and obtained Patta in his name.
Accordingly, in view of the change in Patta, the first accused
had sold the property to the fourth accused. Aggrieved against
the same, the fourth accused has also filed Civil Suit and the
same is pending before the Trial Court.

¶24

6.Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent in Crl.R.C.No.765/2017 and third respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017, would contend that there is no material
by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged
crime, he is an innocent bonafide purchaser, he ought to have
filed petition under Section 417 IPC against A1 and A3.
Unfortunately, he has been incorporated as an accused, in the
age of 34 years. In the absence of any positive material to
connect, he was cause for the creation of false document. The
trial Court has rightly discharged him.

¶25

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

¶26

7.The learned Magistrate has observed that LW13/Tahsildar
has categorically gave a statement before the Investigating
Officer that no order for transfer of Patta was effected and the
alleged action of the accused viz., A2 & A3 to change the Patta
at the Village Register is not supported by any Patta transfer
order by the Competent Authority viz., Tahsildhar.

¶27

8.In view of specific material available in the form of
the statement of LW13/Tahsildhar, the competent witness to speak
about the public document, the Trial Court had erred in
discharging A2 & A3 and hence, this Court finds that there is a
sufficient material to presume A2 & A3, who are the revenue
offcials, that without any order from the competent authority to
effect mutation of name on revenue records viz., Chitta and
Patta, they have effected the patta in connivance with A1 and
hence, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dharmapuri, in Crl.M.P.No.3001 of 2014 is liable to be set aside
and A2 & A3 are ordered to be re-arrayed in C.C.No.51 of 2013 as
A3 and A4 and to face the trial.

¶28

9.Further, Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel for the first
respondent in Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017 and third respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017, would contend that based upon the
document produced by the first accused from the village records,
A1 as the pattadhar, the fourth accused had purchased the
property and believing the representation and believing the
document given by A2 & A3 (revenue witnesses), A4 has purchased
the property. Hence, this Court finds that A4 is only a
bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and hence, in the
absence of any positive material to show A4 also had role in
getting the documents and in the absence of any positive
material to show any nexus to A4 had with the document, this
Court finds that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is
well considered and well merited, does not warrant any
interference. Accordingly Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017 is dismissed
and the order of discharge of A4 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3000 of 2014
is hereby confirmed.

¶29

10.In the result:

¶30

(i) Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017 is allowed and the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, in
Crl.M.P.No.3001 of 2014 is set aside and A2 & A3 are ordered to

¶31

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

¶32

be re-arrayed in C.C.No.51 of 2013 and to face the trial.

¶33

(ii) Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017 is dismissed and the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, in
Crl.M.P.No.3000 of 2014 is hereby confirmed.

¶34

(iii)Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

dua

¶40

To :

¶41

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri.

¶42

2.The Inspector of Police, B1, Dharmapuri Town Police Station, Dharmapuri.

¶43

Crl.R.C.Nos.765 & 766 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos.7036 & 7037 of 2017

¶44

SR-II(CO)
RVM(10/11/2021)

¶45

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

Mr.N.S.Rizwan v. Mr.Manivannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.N.S.Rizwan v. Mr.Manivannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya Vs the Inspector of Police

The State Rep. by Vs Abdul Azeez

Packirisamy, Vs State Rep. by Its the

B.Gouthaman, A/44 Years, Vs the Assistant Director

K.Govindaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs State by