S.Siva v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 28.03.2024 DELIVERED ON : 04.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR S.Siva ... Petitioner/Complainant Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
2.W.S.Ravichandran 3.M/s.SVS Oil Mills, Rep. by its Partner, Mr.K.Baskaran S/o.Kasilingam Nadar having its registered office at New No.11, Thiruvottriyur High Road, Chennai - 600 019.
4.Shyam 5.D.S.Velayudham ... Respondents 1/30
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for entire records in respect of order passed in Crl.M.P.No.13996 of 2023 dated 31.08.2023 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and to set aside the same, direct the respondent police to register the case on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.T.Sreelekha For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent-3 : Mr.J.Kalidas
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.13996 of 2023 dated 31.08.2023 by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and for a consequential direction to the respondent police to register the case on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner.
2/30
2.This Court, on 15.11.2023 and 06.12.2023, had passed the following order:
"Proceedings dated 15.11.2023:
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner lodged a complaint to the respondent Police on 30.03.2023. The complaint is that the petitioner along with one Velayutham/5 th respondent were having interest in two acres of land. This land owned by forty persons. The petitioner entered into an agreement with nine of them and the same registered in Sub Registrar Office. During the month of June, 2021, one Ravichandran/2 nd respondent of Old Washermentpet, Chennai, who is one among the nine, entered into an agreement on behalf of his relatives Shyam/4 th respondent and they had come for negotiation of the property five times to the petitioner's residents at Adyar. At that time, since there was likely of sale of the property, the petitioner's photostat copy of Aadhar and PAN card were given to Shyam/4 th respondent.
Thereafter, due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The negotiation not progressed. What had happened thereafter, the petitioner is not aware.
there is a credit of one percent TDS of Rs.17,000/- denoting the petitioner received Rs.17,00,000/- as income. The petitioner was shock to know about the same because had not received such huge amount. His Auditor informed that unless the petitioner pays Rs.5,00,000/- to the Income Tax account, his returns could not be filed since it is an online filing. The petitioner thereafter lodged the complaint with the respondent Police, C.S.R.No.131 of 2023 assigned on 01.04.2023. Since no action taken, the petitioner sent representation to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 03.07.2023. Thereafter too, no action taken. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, who by order, dated 31.08.
2023 found that the original title owner executed a sale deed in the year 2021 after a period of 16 years from the date of sale agreement. With regard to the complaint of misuse of Aadhar and PAN Card and other details, there is no sufficient material, hence, dismissed the petition, against which the present Criminal Revision Case.
2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to produce the material to show that during CSR enquiry whether parties were called for enquiry and any statements recorded. Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the letter of SVS 4/30
Oil Mills, dated 25.04.2023 addressed to the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai. From the letter, it is seen that the SVS oil informed to Income Tax authorities that though a sale agreement was agreed for Rs.17,00,000/- and anticipating purchase and expenditure, TDS of Rs.17,000/- was deducted and credited to PAN number of the petitioner, but later the sale could not fructify, hence, the amount for sale consideration of Rs.16,83,000/- cancelled and they had also written to the Income Tax authorities to reverse the TDS amount of Rs.17,000/- credited to the account of the petitioner.
3.In view of the same, the grievance of the petitioner had been addressed and now, the Income Tax Authorities to reverse the credit. Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor handed over the letter of SVS Oil Mills to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who to verify the same with the petitioner and his Auditor and get clarified.
4.Post the matter on 24.11.2023.
Proceedings dated 06.12.2023:
In continuation and in conjunction with the earlier order dated 15.11.2023, the following order is passed. 5/30
2.The petitioner submits that from the sale deed document No.4535 of 2021, it is seen that the sale deed is dated 16.06.2021. According to the admission letter dated 25.04.2023, it is seen that the demand draft had been taken for sale consideration on 15.06.2021. Further, it was clearly proved that this demand draft has been recorded in the sale deed document. It is known to SVS Oil Mills that the petitioner is the agreement holder of the property, showing the sale deed and deceiving the petitioner. Proceeded immediately on the next day, on 16.06.2021 and sale deed executed by Vijayakumari Ramalingam and Devamanohari Santhanam in favour of S.V.S. Oil Mills. This will clearly prove that how deception had been committed, but for the projection of such sale deed, the sale agreement would not have entered. Further from the encumbrance certificate, the sale of the property in the name of SVS is reflected.
3.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in this case, SVS Oil Mills are ready to pay the petitioner, but the petitioner was making unreasonable demand and showing defiance in not willing to conclude the sale. Thereafter, only SVS Oil Mills had entered into the sale deed with Vijayakumari Ramalingam and Devamanohari Santhanam. The petitioner's attitude is the reason for not paying the sale benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that SVS 6/30
oil mills are willing to settle the petitioner all his dues, but now have become complacent with the police and refusing to make the payments to the petitioner.
4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that such allegations are unwarranted. The Assistant Commissioner shall conduct the enquiry in this regard.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Adyar on or before 16.12.2023. The Assistant Commissioner, Adyar shall conclude the enquiry and report before this Court on 05.01.2024.
6.Post the matter on 05.01.2024."
3.In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed on 15.11.2023 and 06.12.2023, a status report has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar Range, Greater Chennai Police on 05.01.2024, which reads as follows:
1. It is submitted that I am presently working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar Range, Adyar District of Greater Chennai Police. Even though, I was not cited as a respondent in the above petition filed by the petitioner, I am well acquainted with the 7/30
facts and circumstances of the petition from the available records and as per the order of the High Court, I conducted enquiry and filing this Status Report before this Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
2. It is further submitted that, with respect to the property measuring 2 Acre and 4 cents in Sathangadu Village, Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai, a deed of agreement of sale was registered at SubRegister office, Thiruvotriyur in the name of one Velayutham and the petitioner S.Siva and a total Sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- was paid as advance by both to purchase the property which was agreed by 9 owners in the year 2005.
3. It is submitted that, the current heirs of the said property approached one Velayutham and the petitioner S. Siva to cancel sale agreement which was registered in 2005, as they planned to sell the property to SVS Oil Mill Company who were currently at lease on the above said property for 75 years from 1975 to 2050. So both agreed to cancel sale agreement and for that, the property owners were ready to pay the sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- each. The property was sold to SVS Oil Mill Company as planned. During registration Mr.Velayutham came and handed over the original sale agreement executed in 2005 as promised and the petitioner Tr.Siva failed to appear. Hence the cancellation of sale agreement was not effect. The petitioner was making unreasonable demand and showing defiance in not willing to 8/30
conclude the sale even though SVS Oil Mills are willing to settle the petitioner all his dues.
4. It is submitted that, during the course of investigation, it came to know that the 9 owners who did the sale deed in 2005, out of them 6 expired and the whereabouts of their legal heir could not be traced. A letter was sent to SRO, Thiruvottiyur, on 03.01.2024 requesting the possibility of cancelling the deed made in the year 2005 by the petitioner and his partner.
5. It is submitted that both parties were called to appear for enquiry on 18.12.2023. During the enquiry the buyer SVS Mills stated that they are ready to settle entire the amount to the petitioner as promised earlier but demanding to cancel the agreement made in the year 2005. Further in this regard V.R.Jayakumaran partner SVS Oil Mills has given a letter stating that since the transaction did not materialize, they contacted their auditor to obtain the refund of the said sum of Rs.17.000/-. But our auditor informed that there is no form in the Income tax portal for getting the refund. But they have given a letter dated 25-04-2023 to the Income Tax Officer, Non- Corporate Ward15(1) Chennai-600 034 requesting him to reverse the said TDS to our PAN account. But no action was taken. With regard to the grievance raised by the said Mr.Siva before the Income Tax Department, they offered their explanation by email dated 07- 11-2023. 9/30
Apart from the above, they have also raised their grievance in the income tax portal on 08-11-2023 for reversal of the said TDS. The auditor has informed that the grievance of the said Mr.Siva has been redressed.6. Further it is stated in the said letter that even now if the said Mr.Siva cancels the aforesaid sale agreements, before the Subregistrar, Thiruvottiyur by a valid deed of cancellation, SVS Oil Mills is ready and willing to pay the sum of rs- 17 ,00,000/ On the other hand, if the said Mr.Siva is harassing us by giving complaint after complaint, we are ready to take judicial recourse against the said Mr.Siva for vexatious prosecution.
For the reasons well stated above, and in view of the letter supra mentioned it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept my Status Report and pass necessary orders and thus render justice."
4.The learned counsel for the third respondent appeared and made his submissions, which was recorded in the proceedings dated 05.01.2024, the same reads as follows:
"Today, Mr.J.Kalidas, learned counsel is appeared for the rd respondent and filed vakalat to that effect. He fairly submitted that 10/30
even today, the 3 rd respondent is ready to pay Rs.17,00,000/- by way of demand draft to the petitioner but his only concern is that the registered sale agreements in document Nos.1797, 1798, 1879 & 1937 of 2005 and 4535 of 2021 stand as encumbrance to the property purchased by the 3 rd respondent. He further submits that already the 3 rd respondent already written to the Income Tax Department with regard to TDS debit in the petitioner's account by letter, dated 25.04.2023, for which, Email from Income Tax Department received on 07.11.2023. He further submitted that the 3 rd respondent will give an undertaking affidavit to the effect that the Income Tax liability if any created with regard to the earlier cancelled cheque, the same shall be cleared by the 3 rd respondent.
2.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1 st respondent Police filed status report on the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar Range, Chennai wherein it is seen that the 3 rd respondent is ready to pay a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- and with regard to other objections of the petitioner, the same can be addressed.
3.At this stage, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent sought some time to produce the demand draft of Rs.17,00,000/- in the name of the petitioner.
4.Post the matter on 06.02.2024."
11/30
5.The learned counsel for the third respondent also produced a letter dated 23.03.2023 addressed to the first respondent, which reads as follows:
12/30
13/30
14/30
6.The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that he is ready with the demand draft and he will hand over the same to the petitioner herein in full and final settlement, which is agreeable to the petitioner. He further submitted that third respondent had already written to the Income Tax Authorities on 07.11.2023 and 25.04.2023, which are as follows: 15/30
16/30
17/30
18/30
7.The learned counsel for third respondent submitted that the property situated in Survey No.222/1 in Old Patta No.118 (New Patta No.325) at No.28, Sathangadu Village, Thiruvallur District originally belongs 19/30
to the ancestors of W.S.Siva Chakravarthy, W.S.Girija Sankaran, W.S.Siva Baskaran, W.S.Sarojini Ammal, W.S.Sivarani, W.G.Devamanohari, Jayakrishnan @ Prashanth, Radhika and W.S.Ravichandran and by way of succession, the property got devolved upon the above mentioned persons. On 01.04.2005, the original title holder of the above said property executed a registered sale agreement in Document No.1798/2005 before the Sub Registrar Office, Tiruvottiyur in favour of the petitioner and his business partner. On 05.04.2005, W.G.Devamanohari executed a registered sale agreement in Document No.1879/2005 before the Sub Registrar Office, Tiruvottiyur in favour of the petitioner and his business partner. Similarly, on 05.04.2005, Jayakrishnan, Prashanth and Radhika executed a registered sale agreement in Document No.1937/2005 before the Sub Registrar Office, Tiruvottiyur in favour of the petitioner and his business partner. The second respondent also executed a registered sale agreement in Document No.1797/2005 before the Sub Registrar Office, Tiruvottiyur in favour of the 20/30
petitioner and his business partner. The petitioner is only a agreement holder and their understanding was that the petitioner to be paid Rs.17,00,000/- deducting TDS which was not paid earlier. The petitioner as agreement holder intend to frustrate the sale for his demands. Since it was not acceptable, the third respondent directly approached the land owner and executed the sale deed Document Nos.4535/2021, 4512/2021, 4551/2021 and 4552/2021 in favour of the third respondent. The only apprehension of the third respondent is that the sale agreement of the year 2005 still reflects in the Encumbrance Certificate of the property in S.No.222/1. 8.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is only a agreement holder, the owners of the property have executed the sale deed in favour of the third respondent and they are not coming forward to cancel the sale agreement even though the petitioner is ready. He further submitted that the parties to the sale agreement in Document Nos.4535/2021, 4512/2021, 4551/2021 and 4552/2021 are not 21/30
cooperating with the petitioner and coming forward to cancel the sale agreement in Document Nos.1797/2005, 1798/2005, 1879/2005 and 1937/2005. Further it is learnt by the petitioner that some of the parties to the sale agreement are not available. Hence, though he is ready to cancel the agreement, he is unable to do so due to the non availability of parties to the agreement. Further, the petitioner has got no objection for the sale entered between the third respondent with the land owners and confirms the genuineness of the sale deed Document Nos.4535/2021, 4512/2021, 4551/2021 and 4552/2021.
9.Today, the learned counsel for the third respondent handed over the Demand Draft bearing No.902303 dated 05.02.2024 for a sum of Rs.16,83,000/- drawn in favour of the petitioner, in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Chennai. The petitioner had received the same, a scanned reproduction of the Demand Draft reads as follows: 22/30
23/30
10.The petitioner has also filed an affidavit reiterating that no right or any claim over the property for which he earlier entered into a sale agreement. He confirms the ownership and title of the third respondent, who purchased the same from the original owners in Document Nos.1797/2005, 1798/2005, 1879/2005 and 1937/2005. A scanned reproduction of the affidavit reads as follows:
24/30
25/30
26/30
11.The third respondent's contention is that in the records of Sub Registrat Office, Tiruvottiyur, the sale agreement of the year 2005 still reflects in the Encumbrance Certificate of the property in S.No.222/1. When they approached the SRO to remove the same, it was informed that there is no provision in the Registration Act, to enable the registration authorities to cancel any document or made any entries in the records and it is for the third respondent to go before the Civil Court to cancel the said registration. 12.This Court finds that the issue had been amicably settled between the petitioner and third respondent and the petitioner's contention based on the sale agreement no more exists in view of petitioner receiving the agreed amount. The sale agreements in Document Nos.1797/2005, 1798/2005, 1879/2005 and 1937/2005 not acted upon, further it is time barred and are non-est in the eye of law. The third respondent shall produce this order before the Sub Registrar Office, Tiruvottiyur. The Sub-Registrar to 27/30
make the entry in the Index Book-I in the sale agreements in Document Nos.1797/2005, 1798/2005, 1879/2005 and 1937/2005 which are time barred, not acted upon and no more a valid document in the eye of law. This entry to be reflected in the encumbrance certificate.
13.With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
04.06.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order rsi 28/30
To 1.The Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
2.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
29/30
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi Pre-delivery order in 04.06 .2024 30/30