← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/19671/2015dismissed

M.Kasinathan v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

2021-12-15Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15..12..2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.19671 OF 2015 AND CRL.M.P.NO.1 OF 2015 M.Kasinathan

...Petitioner

Versus

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kurisalappattu Police Station, Kurisalappattu, Tirupathur Taluik, Vellore District.

2.Tmt.Thamizhchelvi

...Respondents

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.173 of 2013 registered on the file of the 1st respondent police and to quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.T.V.Badrinarayanan For Respondents :

Mr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate [Criminal Side] for R1 Mr.S.Panneerselvan for R2

ORDER

The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A1 in the case registered in Crime No.173 of 2013 on the file of the 1st respondent as against the petitioner and two others for the alleged offence under Section 420, 465, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, has come forward with this original petition seeking to quash the FIR.

2. One Balakrishnan, the husband of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner (A1), Dayalan (A2) and Boopathy (A3) were brothers. The were the members of Hindu Joint Family and co-shares of ancestral properties comprised in various survey numbers, situated at Irunappattu Village, Aniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. The 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint before the 1st respondent police alleging that earlier there was a

partition between the brothers and pursuant to the same, they had been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. Subsequently, the husband of the 2nd respondent and A2 had purchased the share of A3 by means of a registered sale deed. After the purchase, in order to cheat 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein (A1) and A2 had created a forged document and thereby misappropriated the property. Thereafter, on 03.09.2013, the petitioner and the other accused prevented one Sekar, who was a coolie under the 2nd respondent from doing cultivation work in the land and driven him out of the property and thereafter, the accused came to the house of the 2nd respondent and criminally intimidated her. Hence, she had lodged a complaint based on which a crime was registered for alleged offence under Section 420, 465, 294(b), 506(1) of IPC against the petitioner and two others. It is this criminal proceedings which is now sought to be quashed by A1.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the dispute is civil in nature. There was a partition between the brothers in respect of the ancestral properties and the partition deed was not a fraudulently created as alleged by the 2nd respondent. Even though the 2nd respondent was a party to the partition, she did not come to the office of the sub registrar on the date when the deed was presented for registration. That apart, there are civil suits pending between the parties and in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, by giving criminal colour to a civil dispute, the 1st respondent had given the present complaint and no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner for the offence alleged in the complaint.

4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

5. According to the 1st respondent, there was a oral partition between the four brothers in respect of ancestral properties situated in Irunappattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District and subsequently, one of the brothers is said to have sold his share in favour of the petitioner and the husband of the 2nd respondent by means of a registered sale deed. Further, according to the 2nd respondent, in her absence, both the petitioner and the other accused had entered into a partition including the properties already inherited by her from her husband and registered the same before the Sub Registrar, Tirupathur, on 26.05.2006.

6. A perusal of the partition deed dated 26.05.2006 would show that even though the de facto complainant's was included in the deed, admittedly, she was not a party to the registration.

It is not known as to how the partition deed was registered without legal heirs of the one of the deceased co-shares present and signed the deed. Now, the allegation is that the petitioner and the other accused had created a forged partition deed and by using it, the accused are trying to grab the shares of the 2nd respondent. That part, there is also a specific allegation to the effect that all the accused had made an attempt to prevent the 2nd respondent from enjoying her share, criminally intimidated her and her coolie who was taking care of the agricultural operations on behalf of the 2nd respondent. These allegations, in the considered opinion of this court, would make out a prima facie case against the petitioner and as such this court does not find any merit in the petition and the petition is liable only to be dismissed.

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected MP stands closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar kmk To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kurisalappattu Police Station, Kurisalappattu, Tirupathur Taluik, Vellore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.T.V.Badrinarayanan, Advocate SR.No.67675 +1cc to S.Panneer Selvan, Advocate SR.No.67586 Crl.O.P.No.19671 of 2015 JPL(CO) RVM(21/01/2022)