J.Kishore Jain v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.11.2016 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.Nos.27114 & 27382 of 2011 and MP.Nos.1 & 1 of 2011

1. J.Kishore Jain

2. J.Rajeshkumar Jain

...Petitioners

(in Crl.OP.No.27114 of 2011)/ Accused 5 & 6

1. P.Suresh Kumar

2. P.Kushalchand

...Petitioners

(in Crl.OP.No.27382 of 2011)/ Accused No.3 & 4 Vs.

1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police G5, Secretariat Colony Police Station, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

2. Annamma Chinnan ... Respondents (in both Crl.OP.Nos.27114 & 27382 of 2011) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition No.27114 of 2011 filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in the First Information Report dated 29.08.2011 registered as Crime No.1250 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable and as there is no cognizable offence made out, only with regard to the petitioners herein.

Criminal Original Petition No.27382 of 2011 filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the first information report dated 29.08.2011 and registered as Crime No.1250 of 2011 in the G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, KIlpauk, Chennai and quash the same with regard to the petitioners herein.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel For M/s.S.Ramesh Kumar (in Crl.OP.No.27114 of 2011) : Mr.A.Thirumurthi (in Crl.OP.No.27382 of 2011) For R1 : Mr.C. Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor (in Crl.OP.Nos.27114 & 27382 of 2011) For R2 : Mr.R.Vaigai (in Crl.OP.Nos.27114 & 27382 of 2011) C O M M O N O R D E R These criminal original petitions have been filed to call for the records in the FIR dated 29.08.2011 registered as Crime No.1250 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same with regard to the petitioners herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. On the complaint lodged by Annamma Chinnan, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1250 of 2011 on 29.08.2011 against Shermila Annsherry, Pramila Sherry, Sureshkumar, Kushalchand, Kishore Jain and Rajeshkumar, challenging which, J.Kishore Jain, J.Rajeshkumar Jain, P.Suresh Kumar & P.Kushalchand have filed these quash petitions.

4. At the outset, Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.27114 of 2011 submitted that Annamma Chinnan, the de-facto complainant had died. Even if the de-facto complainant dies, the crime will not abate and therefore, this Court proceeded to peruse the records.

5. It is the case of Annamma Chinnan, that she is the absolute owner of the property measuring 5500 sq.ft in Old No.15, New No.10, 1st Street, Secretariat Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. She had purchased the same in the year 1958 and then she constructed a house therein. Annamma Chinnan had two daughters viz. Sujatha Elizabeth and Susan Philip and one

son by name Sherry Chinnan. Sherry Chinnan got married to Premila and has one daughter by name Shermila Annsherry. Sherry Chinnan died in the year 2008. After the death of Sherry Chinnan, his widow Premila and her daughter Shermila Annsherry were staying in the ground floor portion of the house and Annamma Chinnan was staying in the first floor portion. After some time, Annamma Chinnan, went and lived with her relatives in Vellore. On 30.03.2011, Annamma Chinnan settled the house property by a deed of settlement, under which, she had settled 30% share of the property to each of her two daughters viz. Sujatha Elizabeth and Susan Philip and balance 40% share was settled in the name of Shermila Annsherry (daughter of deceased Sherry Chinnan).

While so, Annamma Chinnan received information that some trespassers are staying in the property and therefore, when she came to the property on 25.06.2011, she was informed that some people were taking measures to demolish the property. On enquiry, Annamma Chinnan heard that Premila and her daughter Shermila Annsherry had created a false document and had sold the property to some third parties. It is the specific case of Annamma Chinnan, that apart from settlement deed dated 30.03.2011, she had not executed any other document.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the petitioners / accused had purchased the property from Premila and Shermila Annsherry on 13.06.2011 validly, and after getting appropriate sanction from the Corporation authorities they demolished the property. He further submitted that Shermila Annsherry had obtained the property by settlement deed dated 15.08.2008 that is said to have been executed by Annamma Chinnan in her favour. He also submitted that there are civil litigations pending in CS.No.6 of 2013 in respect of the said property.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that though his client Annamma Chinnan had died, the offences committed by her cannot abate. He contended that, it is the specific case of Annamma Chinnan that she had not executed any other document, other than the settlement deed dated 30.03.2011.

8. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

9. As rightly contended by Mr.Thirumurthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.27382 of 2011, the death of Shermila Annsherry will not efface the offences.

10. It is the specific case of Annamma Chinnan that she had executed only a settlement deed dated 30.03.2011 giving 30% share each to her two daughters and 40% share to Shermila

Annsherry. Such is the assertion of Annamma Chinnan, that the police investigation is imperative to find out whether the settlement deed dated 15.08.2008 is a genuine one or fabricated document.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.27114 of 2011 submitted that the facts that his clients are innocent purchasers also deserves to be considered by the investigating officer.

12. Since, there are prima facie materials to proceed, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the prosecution at the threshold and in the interest of justice, the FIR is transferred from the file of G5, Secretariat Police Station to the file of the Central Crime Branch, since Central Crime Branch is a specialized agency that is capable of investigating into such offences, unlike the regular police, who are adept in investigating law and order crimes.

13. In the result, these quash petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

14. The Inspector of Police, G5 Secretariat Colony Police station is directed to hand over the entire case diary in Crime No.1250 of 2011 to the Central Crime Branch within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCB is directed to assign the case to an officer in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB for thorough investigation, taking into consideration the nature of the allegations in the FIR.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar mk To

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police G5, Secretariat Colony Police Station, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+2 cc to M/s.Anna Mathw Advocate sr 68756 & 68754 +1 cc to M/s.V.Nicholas Advocate sr 68683 +1 cc to M/s.S.Ramesh Kumar Advocate sr 68253 Crl.O.P.Nos.27114 & 27382 of 2011 aa02/01/2017