M.Santhanam, M/A 80 Years, v. The State Rep By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Crl.O.P.No.24170 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.13981 of 2017 1.M.Santhanam 2.S.Suresh Babu 3.Geetharani 4.Usharani 5.Bakiyalakshmi 6.Prabharani 7.Umamaheswari 8.Krishnaveni 9.Ramesh 10.Vimala Bhai 11.Kowsalyadevi .. Petitioners / Accused1 to 8, 11, 13 & 15 Vs.
1.State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.
2.R.S.T.Ramasamy .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the Crime No.522 of 2017 on the file of the Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur and quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition. For Petitioner .. Mr.M.Guruprasad For R1 .. Mr.E.Raj Thilak Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 .. Mr.N.Arunkumar
ORDER
The petitioners herein are A1 to A8, A11, A13 and A15 in First Information Report in Crime No.522 of 2017 registered by the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District. They filed the present petition taking advantage of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash further investigation in Crime No.522 of 2017 by the Investigating Agency.
2.It is the contention of Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire issue surrounds the land and with respect to which already, a suit is pending in O.S.No.169 of 2007 before the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. It is also pointed out that the 14th defendant in the said suit is the father of the defacto complainant. The matter is already seized by the Civil Court and thereafter, it is claimed that giving a complaint and registration of FIR is totally unwarranted. It is pointed out by Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel that offences under Sections 465 and 468 are not attracted, because it reflects re-survey of the land by the Government and therefore, the petitioners had no role in the said activity at all. It is also pointed by Mr.Guruprasad learned counsel that the petitioners had purchased the land in Court auction and a reading of the complaint would show that the complainant actually alleges that the Court had no such power to auction the land.
3.These are issues which are primarily civil in nature and on these grounds Mr.M.Guruprasad learned counsel states that further investigation is only to harass the present petitioners herein. He alleges that there is also a motive for the same since, the father of the defacto complainant is the 14th defendant in the suit as stated in O.S.No.169 of 2007, surrounding the very same lands. It is also pointed out that the some of the petitioners herein are senior citizens of advanced age and therefore, this harassment at that particular age is totally unwarranted and the complaint had been given only to reap vengeance against the petitioners herein. 4.Heard also Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 and also Mr.N.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
5.I am of the opinion that necessary consideration can be given to the Investigation Officer to follow the procedure as enunciated in the Code of Criminal Procedure during the course of investigation. This would also include issuing of notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C to all persons concerned, invite them to produce necessary records, examine the documents and examine
whether the civil suit which is already pending relates to the subject matter of the land and thereafter, take a considered decision with respect to any further steps to be taken pursuant to the registration of First Information Report. 6.It is also to be noted that the Investigating Officer may also take into consideration the age of the accused particularly, the petitioners herein and due regard may also be given to the same. The fact that the petitioners claimed that they have purchased the property through Court auction may also be considered by the Investigation Officer. The fact that the re-survey had been done by the revenue authorities may also be considered by the Investigation Officer. After considering all the surrounding factors, let a decision be taken by the Investigation Officer whether to proceed further or not.
In this connection, the Investigation Officer may also examine the defacto complaint and record his statement and come to a just conclusion. These guidelines would protect the present petitioners from any harassment which they apprehend they would face during the course of investigation.
7.With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation in the above said manner and in manner known to law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar smv To The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.
+1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate SR.No. 45256 +1cc to Mr.C.Ram Kumar, Advocate SR.No. 45599 Crl.O.P.No.24170 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.13981 of 2017 AK II(CO) A.SK(20.09.2021)