Disposed

K.Bhoopalan v. S.Saravanakumar

Madras HC23 Feb 2022CRL RC/146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal revision petition seeking the return of a property sale agreement seized as evidence. The court ordered the petitioner to deposit the sale consideration with the trial court, directing the magistrate to return the document upon receipt and instructing authorities to facilitate cancellation registration.

What did the court decide?

Deposition of Rs.50 lakhs to return the seized sale agreement and permit cancellation registration.

K.Bhoopalan Vs S.Saravanakumar — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.02.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.146 OF 2022

¶6

K.Bhoopalan ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus 1. S.Saravanakumar ... Respondent/ accused - 1 2. State by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Job Rocket Wing, Vepery, Chennai. Crime No.171 of 2019 ... 2nd Respondent/ Complainant

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed by the Learned Court of the CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17492 of 2021 dated 08.10.2021 and to set aside the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamarai Selvam For R1 : Mr.D.Prasanna Kumar For R2 : L.A.J.Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

The petitioner herein has entered into a sale agreement for the sale of his property with the first respondent, who has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.171 of 2019, which is under investigation by the second respondent.

¶11

2.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the first respondent was accused of an offence under Section 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC. In the course of the investigation, the Investigating Agency has seized the sale agreement from the possession of the first respondent.

¶12

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

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) which was received as part of the sale consideration from the first respondent, in leave of which, he requires that the sale agreement be returned to him.

¶14

4.Heard, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the second respondent and Mr.D.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶15

5.The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that his client has no objection, whereas, the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) submitted as soon as the amounts are deposited as promised by the Revision petitioner, they will also report no objection and the document will be returned.

¶16

6.On a specific query, this Court is informed that the sale agreement dated 01.03.2019 is now in the custody of the Investigating Agency. The Investigating Agency is therefore, required to produce the same before the concerned Magistrate Court on or before 25.02.2022.

¶17

7.The Revision Petitioner is now required to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the credit of Crime No.171 of 2019 before the Trial Court. Upon receipt of the same, the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is required to handover the document without any condition attached.

¶18

8.The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner also added that the Investigating Agency has given a notice to the concerned Sub Registry not to register any document creating any encumbrance over the property, which is the subject matter of the sale agreement dated 01.03.2019 between the Revision Petitioner and the first respondent. In view of this, if the Revision Petitioner and the first respondent go to cancel the sale agreement, the said instruction given by the first respondent to the concerned Sub Registry may become an impediment.

¶19

9.The learned Government Advocate on the instruction of the Investigating Authority who are present before the Court submitted that they would also intimate the concerned Sub Registry to permit the registration of any document of cancellation to be entered between the Revision Petitioner and the first respondent.

¶20

10.The said statement is also recorded.

¶21

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

¶22

11.It is to be underscored that the case pertains to Section 409 and 420 r/w 34 IPC and does not involve the property covered by the sale agreement, as it belongs to the Revision Petitioner herein.

¶23

12.The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

Tsg

¶29

¶30

1. The CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶31

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Job Rocket Wing, Vepery, Chennai.

¶32

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.11767

¶34

Crl.R.C.No.146 of 2022

¶35

VSN II(CO) PM/23/02/2022

¶36

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

K.Bhoopalan v. S.Saravanakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Bhoopalan v. S.Saravanakumar

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

G.Umapathy Vs the State Rep.by

C.Moidoo Vs M.K.Rahim

V.Rajasekaran Vs Mr.Mahalingam

Vijayan Vs State Rep by

E.Prabhu Vs State Rep by

Logeswaran Vs State Rep by