Gopal v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 03.07.2015 Delivered on : 08.07.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL.O.P.No.15040 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1,2 of 2015 Gopal ... Petitioner/Accused 6

Versus

The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.

.. Respondent/Complainant (X Cr.No.77/2000) Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for records in C.C.No.3587 of 2008 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3587 of 2008 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

3. On a complaint lodged by one Dilip Dugar, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2000 for offences under Section 420, 471 read with 465 and 109 IPC against six accused and after completing the investigation, filed a Final Report in C.C.No.3857 of 2008 before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, challenging which, the 6th accused in before this Court.

4. It is the case of the defacto complainant that V.S.Natarajan [A1] has represented to him in July 1999 that he will get an allotment order for a plot in Besant Nagar from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board [TNHB] under the Government's discretionary quota and obtained around Rs.2,21,951/-. The defacto complainant had paid the sum of Rs.2,21,951/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of TNHB. Natarajan [A1] collected the demand draft from the defacto complainant and remitted to the Housing Board, but obtained an allotment of plot in the name of his wife. When the defacto complainant questioned Natarajan, he seems to have produced an allotment order in favour of the defacto complainant, which when verified with the authorities was found to be a fake and forged document.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A6 read through the entire Final Report and the 161 statements recorded by the police and submitted that there is no iota of evidence as against this petitioner for the prosecution to proceed.

6. In the Final Report, a general allegation has been made stating that this petitioner had abatted the principal offender namely, Natarajan. It is true that this petitioner was working as a Chainman in the TNHB at the relevant point of time. Apart from the police confession of a co-accused, there is no material on record to implicate this petitioner in the alleged offence. The police have filed a counter, wherein, in paragraph No.7, it is stated as follows:

"7. It is submitted that the investigation reveals that A4 to A6 are the employees of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai, who have colluded with other accused, namely, A1 to A3 and committed the offence of false allotment of plots in the Housing Board to third persons and cheated. Further, A6 in the capacity of Chairman in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board went along with the other during the time of survey of the plot in some other place, even though it is not coming under the Housing Board, created a scene in order to believe the same as Housing Board plot by the complainant and towards the same, he has received an amount of Rs.1,000/- from A1."

7. Thus the allegation against this petitioner is that he has received Rs.1,000/- from A1 for the survey of a plot in someother place, which does not belong to the Housing Board. The allegation of the defacto complainant is that A1 and other accused had made him believe that he has been allotted a plot under the discretionary quota and he was given a fake allotment order. The defacto complainant in his 161 statement has not stated a word about this petitioner. Only in the confession statement of one of the accused, the name of this petitioner surfaces. It is trite law that police confession has no evidentiary value, even against the maker. It is also stated that Natarajan [A1] had died.

8. In the result, this Court finds that there are no materials worth the salt implicating the petitioner in the offence and hence, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.3857 of 2008 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is quashed as against this petitioner alone. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar gya To 1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.

3.Do thro The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

1 cc to Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi , Advocate Sr.No.34986/15 CRL.O.P.No.15040 of 2015 br(co) pmk.5.8.2015