S.Gangatharan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.MP.No.2594 of 2025 1.S.Gangatharan 2.J.Prabu ... Petitioners Vs.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy.

Crime No.2 of 2025

...Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.2 of 2025, on the file of the respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioners/accused 2 & 3 in Crime No. 2 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police have moved this Criminal Original Petition to quash the 1/5

proceedings in Crime No.2 of 2025 as against them. The respondent police has registered the said case as against these petitioners and others for the offence under Sections 120B, 259, 260, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 109 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation as against the petitioners is that they have placed forged plot regularisation documents for registration. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are document writers and they draft the deeds, based on the documents furnished to them by the respective vendors and the purchasers. In fact, those vendors and the purchasers have also gave a declaration in their sale deeds as to the nature of the documents, which were placed for registration.

Therefore, these petitioners cannot be found fault with and be prosecuted. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that these petitioners are Advocates, by profession. They have been arrayed as accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.2 of 2025. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, A1 is the Sub Register. This case has been registered as against these petitioners and A1, based on the source information.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that they have received a letter dated 29.01.2025 from the Joint Director, DTCP, Trichirapalli District stating that there was no approval granted for the properties for Allur Village Survey No.18/7A, 130/2, New Survey No. 130/2A1, 130/2B, 130/2A2, 130/4 New Survey No. 130/4A3, 130/4A New Survey No.130/4A2, 130/4B, 44/2 New Survey No.44/2D, 44/2C, 44/2B, 44/2F, 44/2E, 134/7 and 133/1, Kambarasampettai Village Survey No163/3, 175/A New Survey No. 175/5A1A, 162/2, 105, 193/4, 109/1A, 238/8A New Survey No. 236/8A2, 236/8B, 236/8B2, 167/2, 167/3, 108/11, 170/9, 148/5, 148/3A, 148/3B, 163/3, 200/4, 193/3, 135/3, 101/2 New Survey No.

101/2B, 135/7, 145/3, 170/9, 170/8, 140/2A, 140/2B, 170/10, 1090/1B, 190/1A, 139/7, 237/2, 237/4, 169/5F, 169/5A, 169/5C, 237/3, 175/A, 247/2, 135/7A, 172/5A, 135/7A1, 135/3A3, 169/5E and 169/5 New Survey No. 169/5D, Muthrasanallur Village Survey No. 52/9, 52/8A, 52/8B New Survey No. 52/8A7B, 52/8B9 New survey No. 52/8B6B, 103/2D, 103/20, 103/2A, 37/1, 103/2G, 103/2F, 10/3, 34B/4 and 128/8. and Thiruchendurai Village Survey No247/2A New Survey No. 247/2A1A, based on which, they have examined one Paramasivam on 26.02.2025 and he stated that he had purchased the property measuring 1391 sq.ft. in Survey No.200/4 of Kambarasampettai Village vide document No.

settled only in his office. Further he stated that the sketch was not annexed to the document and when he asked about the same, the said Prabhu and one Gangadharan (A2) replied that there was no necessity to annex the sketch as the approval would be obtained from the Panchayat Union office. Such statement of the witness Paramasivam would reveal that the preparation of documents was done by the document writers, the petitioners herein and the purchaser did not have any knowledge as to the documents submitted for registration. 5.

According to the investigating officer, from the statement of the witness Paramasivam, they found that the entire transaction had happened in the office of the petitioners/Advocates and several documents running to 141 in numbers, have been registered and they are having sufficient materials, connecting these petitioners with the commission of offence. According to him, the investigation is in crucial stage. 6.Since the respondent claims that there are certain materials as against these petitioners and the case is at the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.2 of 2025. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the final report, if any, filed in Crime No.2 of 2025.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 24/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

VRN TO 1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, TRICHY.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3704 of 2025 Date :24/03/2025 SS/SAR- /22/04/2025/ 5P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5