Allowed

Rajasekaran v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC5 Jan 2024CRL OP/20243/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging trespass and ransacking of a trust's premises. The State stated the land was Government poramboke with no private rights. The Court held the complaint vexatious and allowed the quash petition, directing the State to erect a board declaring government ownership.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.120 of 2022 quashed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; State directed to put up a board on the land stating it belongs to the Government.

Rajasekaran Vs the State Rep by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20243 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20243 of 2022 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.13301 of 2022

¶8

1.Rajasekaran 2.Ganesan 3.Augustine Suresh @ Suresh 4.Karthik

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Saint Thomos Mount Police Station, Chennai-600 016. Crime No.120 of 2022

¶12

Jayakumar Bharadwaj, Chairman, Dakshin Sangam, Tamil Nadu Chapter, Old.No.54, New.No.52, Poonamallee High Road, St.Thomos Mount, Chennai-16.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.20243 of 2022

¶16

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for entire records relating to Crime No.120 of 2022, pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent and to quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioners :Mr.R.Ramesh For R1 :Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Service awaited

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners have filed this petition to quash the FIR in Crime No.120 of 2022 pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent, for

¶20

the offences under Sections 427 and 506(i) of IPC, against the petitioners.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the 2^nd respondent / Jayakumar Bharadwaj was a Chairman of Dakshin Sangam, a trust engaged in Social and educational and cultural activities having its head office at, Dakshin Sangam, No.313, Vasanth Englave, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-11057 and also having office of the Tamil Nadu chapter at Old No.54, Poonamali High Road, St.Thomas Mount, Pallavaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, Chennai600 016, under a rental agreement dated 09.03.2022 executed by one Gunasundari representing herself as owner of the property without having

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.20243 of 2022

¶24

any manner of right and title to the properties. He further submitted that the

¶25

petitioners and their associates were engaged in premises by uprooting the locked gate and started beating one of his workmen who was doing the repair works. Then they ransacked the entire premises. At that time, the Inspector of Police, Saint Thomos Mount appeared in the premises and forcibly taken him to the police station in the police vehicle and the inspector facilitated the 1^st petitioner and his henchmen to commit various offence including theft of the furniture, laptop, stand fans, heaters, irons and cash of Rs.5,00,000/- kept in the table drawer. The 1^st petitioner came by his vehicle having emblem of Tamil Nadu Government, the 1^st petitioner proclaimed that they are owners of the property mentioned above and further threatened that if the defacto complainant is continued to stay in the premises, they would murder us and escape from the clutches of law with the help of police officials.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged occurrences and a false complaint has been foisted against them. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against them.

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.20243 of 2022

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the land in Survey No.437, to an extent of 26032 Sq.ft, belongs to the State Government and now the Government took possession of the property as on date neither the defacto complainant nor the alleged Sandra Dawn Grewal has any right on the property. The property belongs to Government Puramboke and now under the care of the Government. Therefore, the complaint lodged by R2 who said to be a native of Delhi claiming right over the property as such is vexatious and based on that complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, petitioner was tragged to the Court. However petitioner also have no right to make claim over the said Govt. property.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances, and on considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), that the property in S.Nos. 435 & 437 belong to the Government Puramboke, and is under the care of the state as on date and nobody has any rights, State is directed to keep board in the land that the property belongs to the state to avoid unnecessary vexatious claim. Complaint as such is vexatious one.

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.20243 of 2022

¶33

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶34

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

05.01.2024

¶36

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶37

rri

¶38

¶39

1.The Inspector of Police, Saint Thomos Mount Police Station, Chennai-600 016. Crime No.120 of 2022

¶40

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.20243 of 2022

¶43

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶44

rri

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.20243 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.13301 of 2022

¶46

05.01.2024

¶47

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

Rajasekaran v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasekaran v. the State Rep by Its

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

Devaraj Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sajath Begam Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Padmanabhan Vs G.Mohanasundaram

Govindaraj Vs the State Rep by Its

Boopathy Vs the State

Ajmal Vs Inspector of Police