Allowed

Susanth Karalapadi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Nov 2023CRL OP/4519/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of a criminal trial under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that the petitioner, being a bonafide purchaser of disputed property and a victim of cheque dishonour proceedings, had no involvement in the alleged conspiracy by other accused, warranting dismissal of charges against him alone.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings initiated in C.C.No.255 of 2016 against the petitioner/Accused No.16 are quashed; the criminal original petition is allowed.

Susanth Karalapadi Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.2888 of 2021

Sushanth Karalapadi

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (Land Grabbing) Villupuram. (Crime.No.88 of 2014)

¶11

Raguraman

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records a case in C.C.No.255 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II at Tindivanam and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.Aneesh Vinayak

¶15

For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : No appearance

¶16

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

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.255 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tindivanam having been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 420,423,465,468,471 of IPC and under Section 82 of Registration Act.

¶21

Though notice was served to the 2^nd respondent, no one is appeared

¶22

on behalf of the 2^nd respondent in person or by pleader.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that the subject property belonged to Venkateshapillai. He had two sons and one daughter. Two sons alone obtained legal heir certificate suppressing the fact that the defacto-complainant's mother who is also one of the legal heir of the Venkateshapillai as daughter. On the strength of the legal heir certificate, the Accused No.1 and 2 had executed a sale deed in respect of the entire property to various persons. Initially 1st and 2nd Accused had executed a sale deed to Accused No.13 in respect of the land comprised in S.No.288 admeasuring to an extent of 50 cents (1.10 Acres) Marakkanam Village, within the limits of Marakkanam Panchayat Union,

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 7

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021

¶26

Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram Taluk. In turn, A13 had executed a sale deed in favour of A3 for the land comprised to an extent of 60 cents. In turn the 3^rd accused had executed a sale deed in favour of 15^th and 16 accused. Hence the charge.

¶27

There are totally 17 accused in which this petitioner arrayed as 16^th accused. On perusal of the records, the father of the 1^st and 2^nd accused and the grandfather of the 2^nd respondent owned several properties. The Accused 7 to 11 and 14 are the close relatives of 1st and 2nd Accused and the 2^nd respondent herein. The Accused No.1 and 2 with the help of their cousin brother namely M.G.Ramamoorthy (Accused No.11) filed a suit and obtained order from the Civil Court, as if they are the legal heirs.

¶28

1st and 2nd Accused are the legal heirs of the deceased Venkateshapillai. On the strength of the said legal heir certificate on 8.2.2002 they had executed a sale deed in favour of Gokuldoss and Gopalakrishnan. Immediately it came to the knowledge of the 2^nd respondent. A complaint was lodged and final report also filed. It was taken cognizance by the trial court in C.C.No.9288 of 2004 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

¶29

Saidepet. In the said case accused 1, 2 and 11 were convicted by the trial court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 7

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021

¶31

and the Trial Court was imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to under go each three months as Simple Imprisonment. After their conviction, the District Collector, Chennai passed an order and issued legal heir certificate in favour of the A1 and A2 and the mother of respondent herein.

¶32

Even then the 1^st and 2^nd accused used the earlier legal heir certificate and had executed a sale deed in favour of 13th Accused. In turn Accused 13 executed a sale deed in favour of Accused 3. In respect of entire extent of the property, the petitioner had purchased 50 cents comprised in S.No.288, Old S.No.198 by the registered sale deed dated 30.07.2014 vide Document No.2486 of 2014.

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons conspired together and created encumbrance for the subject property. Admittedly, this petitioner in no way connected with other accused persons. He is the bonafide purchaser and he has nothing to do with the alleged legal heir certificate and sale deed executed by 1st and 2nd Accused. This petitioner is the 3^rd purchaser of the property in dispute. In fact after filing final report, the 3^rd accused requested the petitioner to cancel the sale deed and accordingly the petitioner herein had executed a cancellation of sale deed in favour of the 3^rd accused vide https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 7

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021

¶35

Document No.1446 of 2015 dated 24.04.2015.

¶36

Though the 3rd accused assured to return the entire sale consideration to the 3^rd accused, paid only sum of Rs.27,50,000/- out of 34,00,000/-. Further the 3rd accused had assured to pay the remaining amount of Rs.6,50,000/within a month's time. In which the 3^rd accused issued a cheque bearing No.348003 dated 25.06.2015 drawn from Axis Bank, Pondicherry Branch in favour of this petitioner. However the said cheque presented for collection and it was returned dishonoured with an endorsement ''INSUFFICIENT FUNDS''.

¶37

Therefore the petitioner initiated proceedings Under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.6458 of 2015 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam , Chennai and it is pending for trial. Therefore it shows that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser and nothing to do with the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed as against this petitioner/Accused No.16 alone.

¶38

Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated as against this petitioner/Accused No.16 in C.C.No.255 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 7

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021

¶40

Magistrate II at Tindivanam is quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

08.11.2023

¶42

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order gvn

¶43

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶44

gvn

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 7

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021

¶47

¶48

The Judicial Magistrate II, Tindivanam

¶49

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (Land Grabbing) Villupuram.

¶50

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.4519 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.2888 of 2021

¶52

08.11.2023

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 7

Susanth Karalapadi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susanth Karalapadi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.a.Arunprasath Vs the State Rep. by

T.R.Sampath Vs the State Rep.by

M/S. Sri Sai Balaji Gas Cylinders Pvt., Ltd., Vs the State Rep.by

N.Subramani Vs The District Collector

M/S.P.v.S. Textiles Private Vs M/S.Sri Lakshmi Mills

Susil Lalwani Vs State Rep.by