Petitioner, arraigned as third accused for purchasing property from a settlement deed, sought quashing of a charge-sheet in a land grabbing case alleging a fraudulent family property transaction. The court found prima facie allegations and a specific overt act against him, dismissed the petition, and directed expedited trial within three months.
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.6376 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6376 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.4424 and 4425 of 2022
Abdul Wahab ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police, CCB Crime Branch, Tirunelvei District, Crime No.01 of 2012
2. Anarkali ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS Act, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in C.C.No.88 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli and quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate for R1
R2 – Not ready in notice
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6376 of 2022
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the charge-sheet
in C.C.No.88 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing
Cases, Tirunelveli.
2. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent.
3. There is no representation for the petitioner and the second respondent/ de- facto complainant. Even though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to serve notice to the second respondent/ de-facto complainant, no notice was served on the second respondent.
4. The case of the prosecution is that one Mohamed Ali is absolute owner of the properties in Nedunkulam Village in S.Nos.586/1, 583/1 and 586/1B to an extent of 4 acres 77 cents, 2 acres 54 cents and 3 acres 81 cents. The defacto complainant/Anarkali, the first accused/Beemajohn and P.W.2- Gouthernisha are the daughters of said Mohamed Ali. The
second accused/Saiyathuali Fathima is the daughter of the first accused.
2/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6376 of 2022
After the death of Mohamed Ali, his daughters jointly enjoying the said
property. Subsequently, there was a partition suit before the Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in O.S.No.07 of 2004, in which, the said property was equally divided between them. Thereafter, the first accused fraudulently obtained a release deed from her sisters. Upon came to know about the said fact, the de-facto complainant filed a private complaint against the first accused in Cr.M.P.No.6062/2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli and a case was registered in Crime No.5 of 2011 on the file of the CCB, Tirunelvei. Thereafter, settlement was entered between the parties on 21.06.2011 and the defacto complainant's share was settled in her favour and consequently, the said complaint was closed. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant, came
to know that the first accused also made a settlement deed in favour of her daughter/second accused. Based on the said settlement deed, the second accused on 16.06.2011 has made a sale deed in favour of the petitioner/third accused.
5. The main allegation against of the de-facto complainant is that even before the settlement deed executed in favour of the de-facto
3/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6376 of 2022
complainant and her sister, the first accused settled the property in favour of the second accused and subsequently to the petitioner/third accused. Hence the de-facto complainant made a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, and a case was registered in Crime No.01 of 2012 dated 02.01.2022 on the file of the CCB, Tirunelveli and the same has been charge-sheeted as C.C.No.88 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as A3 in C.C.No.88 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli. The petitioner is the bonafide purchaser and he is no way connected with the alleged property dispute between the sisters i.e., first accused, P.W.2 and the defacto complainant. The entire case of the de-facto complainant is civil in nature and all accused persons are family members of the de-facto complainant, except the petitioner herein. The petitioner one who is the third party to the transaction and only bonafide purchaser of the property from the second accused. Hence the petitioner filed the present petition to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.88 of 2022.
4/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6376 of 2022
7. On a perusal of the records and statement of witnesses recorded
under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, this Court finds that prima facie there are allegations made against the petitioner/A3 herein and there is also a specific over act attributed against the petitioner and it is a matter for trial. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the grounds raised by the petitioner is not sufficient to quash the proceedings against him. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition by invoking Section 528 BNSS Act, 2023. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take all his defences before the trial Court in C.C.No.88 of 2022.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
9. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in C.C.No.88 of 2022 and dispose of the case on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a Compliance Report before this Court. It is made clear that no extension of time will be granted to complete the proceedings, if any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6376 of 2022
extension of time sought by the Trial Court the same will be viewed
seriously.
06.12.2024
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms
To
1. The Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli.
2. The Inspector of Police, CCB Crime Branch, Tirunelvei District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6376 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J
ms
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6376 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.4424 and 4425 of 2022
06.12.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet against the petitioner (A3), a purported bona fide purchaser, in C.C.No.88 of 2022 should be quashed as the dispute is civil in nature.
Whether prima facie allegations and a specific overt act against A3 warrant trial despite his claim of being a third party to the family dispute.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Wahab
The Inspector of Police, CCB Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District
Anarkali
P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
