Allowed

Anusuya v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Oct 2022CRL OP/20358/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed criminal proceedings (C.C. No.270 of 2019 and Crime No.578 of 2020) initiated against petitioners alleging fraud in a 2005 cancellation of a sale deed. The court held the case lacked criminal colour, amounting to an attempt to misuse the criminal justice system to harass the accused in a civil property dispute.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings in C.C. No.270 of 2019 and Crime No.578 of 2020 and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

Anusuya Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.10.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Crl.O.P Nos.20358 & 8341 of 2021 and Crl.M.P Nos.5517 & 11073 of 2021

¶7

Crl.O.P No.20358 of 2021

¶8

Anusuya ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Inspector of Police, Mangapalapuram Police Station Namakkal District.

¶11

2.Pappathi @ Papammal ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER in Crl.O.P No.20358 of 2021: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in C.C No.270 of 2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram and quash the same.

¶13

Crl.O.P No.8341 of 2021

¶14

1.Arunkumar 2.Anusuya ... Petitioners Vs.

¶15

1.The Inspector of Police Vaazhapadi Salem District. 2.Pappathi @ Papammal ... Respondents

¶16

1/11

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶19

PRAYER in Crl.O.P No.8341 of 2021: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in FIR No.578 of 2020 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶20

In both petitions For Petitioners : Mr.Sudharshan Sunder For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

No Appearance for R2

¶22

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶23

Crl.O.P No.20358 of 2021 has been filed, seeking to call for the records pertaining to the C.C No.270 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram and Crl.O.P No.8341 of 2021 has been filed, seeking to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.578 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.

¶24

2. For the very same offence, the complainant has once again given

¶25

another complaint before the Inspector of Police, Vaazhapadi and on the basis of the same, an FIR has been registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 465 and 468 and 420 of IPC. Since the subject matter involved is one and

¶26

2/11

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶29

the same, both the petitions are taken up jointly and a common order is passed accordingly.

¶30

3 .Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as

¶31

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.

¶32

4 . The petitioners are the accused against whom a complaint was given by one Jothivel by alleging that the subject property belonged to the father of the petitioner/Anusuya, namely Kandaswamy Gounder. Kandaswamy Gounder died intestate on 21.10.1997. After the death of the said Kandaswamy Gounder, his wife Chellammal and Manikandan had executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant on 04.07.2005. It is alleged that the subsequent cancellation was done on 27.09.2005 by playing fraud upon the purchaser/LW1 namely, Pappathi @ Papammal.

¶33

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cancellation deed got executed on 27.09.2005 for the simple reason that all the legal heirs of the deceased Kandaswamy Gounder were not included

¶34

3/11

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶37

while executing the sale deed in favour of LW.1 on 04.07.2005; since Kandaswamy Gounder has got two daughters and one son and the daughters were not included while executing the sale deed in favour of LW.1, it was later cancelled on 27.09.2005; the de-facto complainant namely Jothivel, who is the brother's son of LW.1 had only instigated LW.1 to maintain this case by taking advantage of the death of Chellammal and Manikandan, who were the executants of the sale deed dated 04.07.2005 and it was subsequently cancelled on 27.09.2005; in this regard, another case was also given by the very same complainant by alleging that the petitioner Anusuya and her son Arunkumar had assaulted LW.1 for having given the case in C.C No.270 of 2019 against the petitioner; there is no quarrel on the point that the suit property was originally belonged to one Kandaswamy Gounder who died intestate on 21.10.1997 by leaving behind

¶38

his wife Chellammal and son Manikandan and daughters Anusuya (petitioner herein) and Danabakiyam; the sale deed in favour of LW.1 was executed on 04.07.2005 by Chellammal and her son Manikandan excluding the daughters; the said sale deed was subsequently cancelled on 27.09.2005, because of the claim made by the daughters that they also have got share in the property.

¶39

4/11

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶42

6. The recitals of the cancellation of sale deed is as under:

¶43

nkw;go fpua Mtzj;jpd ; go Vw;gl;l fpua bjhifia v';fsplk; ePh;

¶44

rhptu brYj;jhjjhYk;. brhj;jpd; RthjPdKk; v';fs; trk; cs;sjhYkl nkYk; gl;lht[k; v';fs; nghpnyna cs;sjhYk;. v';fspy; 1 yf;fkpl;ltUf;F kfs;fSk;. v';fspy; 2 yf;fkpl;ltUf;F rnfhjhpfSkhd jdghf;fpak;=1. mYRah=2 Mfpa bgz; thhpRfs; cs;sjhy; mth;fs; fPH;fz;l brhj;jpy; ghfk; ntz;Lk; vd ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F bjhlucs;sjhYk; Mf ,itfisg; bghUj;J ehk; midtUk; ekf;Fs; eye;J fye;J Kot[ bra;J ic& fpua Mtzj;ij ,uj;J bra;J bfhz;lhy;jhd; eykhf ,Uf;Fk; vd;gij fUj;jpy; bfhz;L ehk; midtUk; ic& fpua Mtzj;ij eilKiwg;gLj;j tpUk;ghjjhy; ic& 1352-2005 fpua Mtzj;ij ,uj;J bra;J bfhz;Ls;nshk;/ vdnt ,dp ,d;W Kjy; ic& 1352/2005 fpua

¶45

MtzkhdJ ,jd; K:yk; ,uj;jhfj;jf;fJ/ ck;kplkpUe;J eh';fs; ic& 1352-2005 fpua mry; Mtzj;ij bgw;Wf;bfhz;Ls;nshk;/ ,e;jg;gof;F ehk; nrh;e;J vGjpf;bfhz;l g[";ir epy fpua Mtzj;jpd; ,uj;J Mtzk; rhp/

¶46

7. The said document has been registered as document No.977 of

¶47

The properties subjected to the sale deed are 11 items of landed properties along with pathway rights and all other easementary rights. If the petitioners had played fraud upon the LW.1 to execute the cancellation deed,

¶48

5/11

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶51

the possession could not have been continuing with the petitioners. It is not the contention of the LW.1 or the de-facto complainant that immediately after executing the sale deed dated 04.07.2005, they were given with possession of the properties, but without the knowledge of LW.1, she was made to execute the cancellation of the sale deed.

¶52

8. It is reliably learnt that the parties to the sale deed and cancellation deed are no more now. The cancellation of the sale deed is seen to have got preceeded with some negotiations and only thereafter, it got executed. The 1st respondent police did not make the relevant investigation with regard to the negotiations that had preceeded the cancellation of the sale deed. The records would show that the statements have been obtained only from the interested witnesses like LW.1, the de-facto complainant and LW.3 to L.W.6, who are hearsay witnesses. The said witnesses did not have any role at the time of executing the sale deed and subsequently when the sale deed was cancelled. Apart from the statement of the above witnesses, there is no material produced to show that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating as stated by the 2nd respondent. For a transaction which occured as early as in the year 2005, criminal colour has been given in the

¶53

6/11

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶56

year 2018 by taking advantage of the death of the parties to the documents namely, Chellammal and Manikandan. These complaints appear to stall the civil suit filed by the petitioner Anusuya and her sister by partitioning the family property between themselves.

¶57

9 . On the face of it, the allegations are unbelievable and just exaggerations and there are no supportive materials also available. Hence, it is a complete waste of time to put the accused under trial. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC 4843], wherein the proposition with regard to giving criminal colour to civil dispute has been set as under:

¶58

"15.The Broad Principles which emerge from the

¶59

precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:-

¶60

(i) to (vi)..................

¶61

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

7/11

¶64

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶65

a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶66

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶67

10. In view of the above stated reasons, I feel it is an appropriate case for which the above principles will apply. The nature in which the complaint has been made by the 2nd respondent, who is the close relative of LW.1, at the time of complaint, lack of materials on record etc., would only show the improbabilities of the complaint and the intention to harass the petitioner Anusuya and her son. Hence, I feel it is appropriate where the court has to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the case proceedings in C.C No.270 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram and the FIR in Crime No.578 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inpector of Police, Vaazhapadi, Salem District.

¶68

8/11

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶71

Crl.O.P No.20358 of 2021

¶72

11. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C No.270 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶73

Crl.O.P No.8341 of 2021

¶74

12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.578 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vaazhapadi, Salem District, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶75

17.10.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶76

uma

¶77

9/11

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶79

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶80

¶81

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Rasipuram.

¶82

The Inspector of Police, Mangapalapuram Police Station Namakkal District.

¶83

3.The Inspector of Police Vaazhapadi Salem District.

¶84

The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶85

10/11

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021

¶88

R.N.MANJULA, J.,

¶89

uma

¶90

Crl.O.P Nos. 20358 & 8341 of 2021 and Crl.M.P Nos.5517 & 11073 of 2021

¶91

17.10.2022

¶92

11/11

¶93

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Anusuya v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusuya v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.N.Subramaniyan Vs the State Rep by Its

P.Shankaran @ Sangar Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry

Nandhini Vs State Rep by

Joseph Jesudoss Vs State by

Narottam Dharawat Vs State Rep.by

Sivakumar Vs State Rep by