The High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings concerning a property dispute. The Court held that since prima facie evidence existed and the facts required an elaborate trial, the petition was not maintainable despite pending civil suits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Pronounce on : 10.11.2023
(Orders reserved on 20.09.2023)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020 and Crl.M.P. (MD).Nos.1014, 1016 and 2464 of 2020
1.Raju
2.Sriram
6.Mala
...Petitioners.
Vs.
1.State rep by Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Cell Dindugal.
2.K.Arumugam
3.Jakir Hussain
...Respondents.
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.14 of 2017 pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land
1/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
Grabbing Cases, Madurai, and quash the same against these petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Solomon Francis For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Addl. Public Prosecutor For R2 & R3 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020 has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.14 of 2017 pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioners.
2/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
3.1. The case of the Petitioners is that the land measuring about 4,800
sq.ft. in plot Nos.9 and 10 in Old Survey No.44, New T.S.No.30 was purchased by one Ramamani, wife of Chandramohan through a sale deed dated 21.08.1987 in Doc.No.664 of 1987 before the Sub-Registrar, Kodaikanal. Thereafter the said Ramamani has executed various power of attorney deeds and sale agreements. Lastly, she said to have executed sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant, viz., Arumugam and Zakir Hussain through her power agent namely Rengarajan by way of a sale deed dated 27.09.2010.
3.2. In order to cheat the Ramamani, the first accused herein through
the 7th accused viz., T.R.Janardhanan had forged and executed a power of attorney deed on 04.01.1992 before the Sub-Registrar, Central Madras, in Doc.No.646 of 1992. Under the guise of the above said document the sale deed was executed in favour of 2nd and 4th accused through 7th accused in respect of 11 cents by changing the survey Nos. as 31 instead of 30, this sale deed was executed. Thereafter the said 11 cents was settled by A2 and A4 through settlement deed in favour of their wives viz., A3 and A5. Thereafter they have executed rectification deed rectifying as survey No.30 instead of
3/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
3.3. The accused waited for 19 years to carry out the rectification deed without the presence of Ramamani or T.C.Janardhanan. Therefore, all the accused have conspired together to cheat the de-facto complainant in respect of property. When the de-facto complainant confronted the accused at Sub-Registrar Office at Kodaikanal all the accused were threatened and verbally abused the de-facto complainant and thereby they gave a complaint and registered the FIR and thereafter filed a final report.
4/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
was executed before the Sub-Registrar Office, Chennai. Thereafter based on power deed a sale deed was executed by T.C.Janardhanan in favour of the 2nd Petitioner and the 4th Petitioner through a sale deed dated 13.09.1992. The sale consideration was paid to Ramamani by cheque. In the year 2009 a settlement deed was executed by Petitioner Nos.2,4 & 6 in favour of Petitioner Nos.1,3 & 5 with regard to the various properties including this disputed property.
5/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
injunction and declaration of cancellation of agreement and power of attorney deeds. Further these petitioners also filed another suit as against the de-facto complainant namely K.Arumugam and the Revenue Officials before the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal and the same is pending for Trial. During the pendency of the suit, the said Ramamani through her power agent executed a sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant. These petitioners have lodged various complaints against the de-facto complainant and others and two of such complaints culminating into FIRs and the same are still pending. On the other hand, the de-facto complainant influenced the Respondents to register a case against the Petitioners, therefore, the pending case as against these Petitioners, is abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.
that based on the complaint given by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3, the 1st Respondent had registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 448, 294-B
6/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
and 506 (I) of IPC. Based on the said complaints, the 1st Respondent has filed a final report without proper investigation and the same was taken on file before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai in CC.No.14 of 2017. The Petitioners have purchased the properties for valuable consideration through sale deed much prior to the sale by the de-facto complainant. Already these petitioners have given a complaint as against the de-facto complainant and others but the Police have not taken any action so far. Thereafter in order to harass the Petitioners, the present complaint has been lodged and without any proper investigation the 1st Respondent has filed a Final Report and the same was taken on file by the Special Court. Therefore, the pending CC.No.14 of 2017 is liable to be quashed. These Petitioners purchased the property for valuable consideration in the year 2010 and now after a long gap and huge delay, they have registered the FIR. Already, these petitioners have filed a civil suit as against the Ramamani and thereafter they also filed the Civil Suit as against the de-facto complainant and the Revenue Officials and the same is also pending before the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal. Therefore, in order to give criminal colour to the civil dispute, this complaint has been lodged and the same is abuse of process of law and in order to prevent the
7/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
quashed.
abuse of process of law, the pending CC No.14 of 2017 is liable to be quashed.
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
therefore, at this stage without any elaborate trial the case of the Petitioners cannot be decided, therefore, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
petitioners. Thereby the Trial Court had also taken cognizance in CC.No.14
of 2107. As far as the allegations made against the Petitioners are concerned, they are very serious in nature and the alleged offences are borne out of the records and thereby this Court cannot decide the veracity of the statements and records collected during the investigation and it requires elaborate trial. Both Parties are claiming rights over the properties and already the civil cases are also pending before the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal and thereby the disputes of the Parties cannot be decided at this stage and it needs elaborate trial. Therefore, the Petitioners have to face the trial before the Trial Court, and the Petitioners are set at liberty to agitate the grounds raised by them before this Court as defence before the Trial Court and the Trial Court has to decide the cases on own merits and in accordance with law. The contention raised by both the Parties require elaborate Trial and thereby it is not appropriate to allow this application at this stage.
2.Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and others
11/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775.
3.Premkumar Vs.State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2016) SCC Online SC 923.
4.Rugmini Ammal (Dead) by LRs. Vs.V.Narayana Reddiar and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 611.
5.Shanmugam and others Vs.Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station, Ariyalur and others reported in (2019) 3 MLJ (Crl) 339.
On careful perusal of the above said judgments, this Court of the view that the said judgements will not be applicable to the present facts of the case. Because in this case, there are prima facie material available as against the petitioners to proceed with the case further and this case needs elaborate trial.
10.11.2023
Index : Yes/No. Speaking : Yes/No. NCC : Yes/No. Nst
12/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
Copy to:
13/14
Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020
P. DHANABAL,J
nst
Pre Delivery Order in Crl. O.P. (MD).No.2010 of 2020 and Crl.M.P. (MD).Nos.1014, 1016 and 2464 of 2020
10.11.2023
14/14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in a property dispute is maintainable when prima facie evidence exists and the dispute requires elaborate trial.
Whether a pending civil suit between the parties precludes the quashing of a criminal complaint arising from the same property dispute.
Whether allegations of forgery and cheating committed through documents borne out of records require an elaborate trial and cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thermax Limited and others Vs.K.M.Johny and othersReferred¶79
(2011) 13 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and othersReferred¶81
(2010) 8 SCC 775 · Who else cites this
Premkumar Vs.State of Rajasthan and anotherReferred¶86
(2016) SCC Online SC 923 · Who else cites this
Rugmini Ammal (Dead) by LRs. Vs.V.Narayana Reddiar and othersReferred¶87
(2007) 12 SCC 611 · Who else cites this
Shanmugam and others Vs.Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station, Ariyalur and othersReferred¶88
(2019) 3 MLJ (Crl) 339
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raju
Sriram
Mahalakshmi
Ananthakrishnan
Bharati
Mala
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
