Ananthi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.03.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.6628, 6630 & 11316 of 2021 Ananthi ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.

Vs.

1.State through The Inspector of Police, K.Pudu Police Station, Madurai - 07.

In Crime No.21 of 2020 ... 1st Respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12899/21 2.Selvakumar ... 2nd Respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12899/21 & Respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20067/21 Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12899/21 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records in C.C.No.339 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai and quash the same as illegal. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20067/21 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the Page No. 1 of 15

records in C.C.No.03 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases), Madurai dated 20.10.2020 with regard to the petitioner alone and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.

: Mr.N.Anandhapadmanabhan Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.T.Amjadkhan For R1 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12899/21 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12899/21 and for Respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20067/21 : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran C O M M O N O R D E R Tmt.Anandhi, petitioner in both these Criminal Original Petitions sought for quashing, i. the final report in C.C.No.339 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai.

ii. the private complaint filed by the respondent Selvakumar in C.C.No.03 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases), Madurai.

Page No. 2 of 15

2. The de facto complainant Selvakumar lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Madurai City, on 30.01.2019 stating thus: (ii) The de facto complainant and his ancestors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.21/5 of Arumbanur I Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, measuring 20 cents, since 1941.

(ii) Since the petitioner Ananthi attempted to interfere with their possession, the de facto complainant's father filed a suit in O.S.No.778 of 1998 before the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai for a declaration of his title to the said property and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner Ananthi from interfering with his peaceful and enjoyment of the same. An exparte decree was passed by the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai in the said suit on 29.10.2001.

(iii) In the meanwhile, the present petitioner Ananthi and other accused by names Chandra, G.Arun @ Arunpandian and M.Raja @ Muthuvel Raj conspired with each other and attempted to create bogus documents.

Page No. 3 of 15

3. Therefore, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police to take action against all the accused. The Superintendent of Police on receipt of the complaint forwarded the same to the Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, Madurai District vide his proceedings in C.No.05/ALGSC/MDU/2019. An enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, after summoning the parties. The present petitioner Ananthi appeared before the Inspector of Police, AntiLand Grabbing Cell on various dates. On 25.05.2019, Ananthi filed a written submission stating that she had already filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Melur against the de facto complainant and that she would be furnishing details of the suit on or before 03.06.2019. Subsequently, on 07.06.2019, she once again appeared before the Inspector of Police and gave a written submission stating that she had filed a case in 3345 of 2019 before the District Munsif Court, Melur. Based on the same, the Inspector of Police closed the complaint and directed all the parties to approach the civil court.

4. When the de facto complainant through an application under RTI Act sought the details of the case in O.S.No.3345 of 2019 filed by Page No. 4 of 15

Ananthi, he was given a reply stating that Ananthi did not file any suit in O.S.No.3345 of 2019. The de facto complainant immediately lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai against Ananthi (present petitioner) and others under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 166, 109, 34, 219, 420, 120(b), 182 and 511 of IPC. The said petition was referred to the Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai City for investigation and report, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police registered an FIR in Crime No.21 of 2020 on 07.01.2020 against the present petitioner Ananthi for the offences punishable under Sections 193 & 420 of IPC. After concluding investigation, the Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station filed a final report in C.C.No.339 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

5. The de facto complainant was not satisfied with the final report filed by the Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station and therefore, he filed a private complaint in C.C.No.3 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate Court (Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases), Madurai Page No. 5 of 15

against 7 accused including the present petitioner Ananthi for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 468, 469, 406, 420, 182, 511, 294B, 193, 506(ii), 166, 219, 109, 34 and 120(b) of IPC.

6. In the final report filed by the Inspector of Police in C.C.No.339 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai, the only allegation made against the present petitioner Ananthi is that she gave a wrong information to the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell that she had filed a suit before the District Munsif Court in O.S.No. 3345 of 2019.

7. Mr.N.Anandhapadmanaban, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.T.Amjadkhan for the petitioner would contend that, (i) Ananthi (petitioner) is a Tahsildar and she purchased the property in Survey No.21/5 of Arumbanur I Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk during the year 1992 itself when she was a minor and the de facto complainant obtained an exparte decree in O.S.No.778 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai even without filing any document of title.

Page No. 6 of 15

(ii) Ananthi (petitioner) did not commit any offence of cheating or forgery as alleged by the prosecution since the RTI information would clearly reveal that Ananthi filed a civil suit before the District Munsif Court, Melur on 07.06.2019 against the de facto complainant in S.R.No.2345/19 and this is evidenced from the C.R.19 Register maintained by the concerned Court. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Ananthi instead of mentioning S.R.No.2345/19 had mistakenly given the number as 3345 of 2019 and the same would not attract the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

He would therefore contend that the final report in C.C.No.339 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai and the private complaint filed by the respondent Selvakumar in C.C.No.03 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases), Madurai cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed.

8. Per contra, C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel for the de facto complainant would contend that, Page No. 7 of 15

(i) The present petitioner Ananthi created a forged legal heirship certificate for the original owners in order to get a sale deed executed in her favour.

(ii) Ananthi also sent a legal notice to the de facto complainant in the name of one Chandra (A1) with the help of G.Arun @ Arunpandian (A3) stating that the de facto complainant should not interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the property and also threatened him.

(iii) Even after knowing the exparte decree dated 29.10.2001 passed in O.S.No.778 of 1998, she obtained a patta from the concerned revenue officials in the year 2019.

9. A perusal of the sale deed dated 25.06.1992 shows that one Pethimaharajan, S/o.V.Veeranan, executed a sale deed in favour of the present petitioner Ananthi in respect of the property in Survey No.21/5 of Arumbanur I Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, measuring 20 cents. Admittedly, she was aged 18 years on the date of execution of the sale deed in her favour.

Page No. 8 of 15

10. The de facto complainant's father filed O.S.No.778 of 1998 before the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai seeking a declaration of his title to the property in Survey No.21/5 of Arumbanur I Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk and for a permanent injunction, against the present petitioner Ananthi. Ananthi remained exparte in the suit and therefore an exparte decree was passed against her on 29.10.2001. A perusal of the decree and judgment passed in the suit shows that the de facto complainant's father filed only 2 documents namely kist receipts. The learned Sub Judge even without any acceptable documentary evidence had decreed the suit exparte. The learned Sub Judge should have scrutinized the pleadings and the documents adduced by the plaintiff in O.S.No.

778 of 1998 (de facto complainant's father) before granting a declaratory decree of title in his favour even though the other side remained absent and was set ex parte. Fortunately, a declaratory decree of title was not granted by the sub-judge for 'Taj Mahal'. The de facto complainant armed with the decree passed in O.S.No.778 of 1998 claims absolute right over the property in Survey No.21/5 of Arumbanur I Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk.

Page No. 9 of 15

11. He also lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police stating that the present petitioner Ananthi is attempting to grab his property and the said complaint was forwarded to the Anti-Land Grabbing Cell. The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, after conducting a preliminary enquiry closed the complaint since the present petitioner Ananthi represented that she had already filed a suit in respect of the said property before the District Munsif Court, Melur in case number 3345 of 2019. Subsequently, it turned out that no such suit was filed by Ananthi. Therefore, the de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against Ananthi and others for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 166, 109, 34, 219, 420, 120(b), 182 and 511 of IPC.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, on his part, referred the same to the Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station for investigation. The Inspector of Police after conducting investigation had laid a final report against Ananthi (petitioner) in C.C.No.339 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

12. The only allegation made against the present petitioner Ananthi is that she had falsely represented before the Inspector of Police, AntiPage No. 10 of 15

Land Grabbing Cell that she filed the suit in case number 3345 of 2019 before the District Munsif Court, Melur. A perusal of the records shows that on 07.06.2019, the present petitioner Ananthi had in fact filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Melur and that the number has been mistakenly given as S.R.No.3345 of 2019 instead of S.R.No.2345/19. Therefore, the present petitioner Ananthi cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC as she did not have any intention of deceiving the de facto complainant. Therefore, the final report in C.C.No.339 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai, is liable to be quashed.

13. As far as the private complaint is concerned, the allegation made against the present petitioner is one and the same as found in C.C.No.3 of 2020. Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel for the de facto complainant contended that Ananthi had forged a legal heirship certificate of the original owner of the property for the purpose of getting a sale deed executed in her name. This has not been indicated by the de facto complainant in any one of his complaints including the private complaint filed by him in C.C.No.3 of 2020. In any event, the present petitioner Ananthi was aged just 18 years during the year 1992 when the Page No. 11 of 15

sale deed was executed in her favour. Therefore, it is highly improbable to create a forged legal heirship certificate of the petitioner's vendor by her. It is also pertinent to point out that the de facto complainant did not implead the vendors of the present petitioner Ananthi as accused in his complaints made before different forums.

14. His further contention is that the petitioner Ananthi obtained patta from the Revenue Department suppressing the decree passed in O.S.No.778 of 1998 by the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai on 29.10.2001. Admittedly, till date, the de facto complainant did not challenge the patta issued in favour of the present petitioner Ananthi for the reasons best known to him. It is pertinent to point out that the de facto complainant did not adduce any documentary evidence to show that he, his father and his grandfather have been in continuous possession of the property in Survey No.21/5 of Arumbanur I Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk. When the de facto complainant contends that the land in Survey No.21/5 of Arumbanur I Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk is an agricultural land, he did not file Adangal extract before the I Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai to show his continuous possession over the property. In any event, all these matters can be decided only by the District Munsif Court, Melur in O.S.No.419 of 2019. Page No. 12 of 15

15. Since none of the offences are made out against the present petitioner Ananthi, the final report in C.C.No.339 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai and the private complaint filed by the respondent Selvakumar in C.C.No.03 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases), Madurai are hereby quashed.

16. The District Munsif Court, Melur shall decide the issues in O.S.No.419 of 2019 uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present Criminal Original Petitions.

17. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 22.03.2024 Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order JEN Page No. 13 of 15

Copy To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, Madurai District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, K.Pudu Police Station, Madurai Madurai District - 625 007.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No. 14 of 15

R.HEMALATHA , J.

JEN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.6628, 6630 & 11316 of 2021 22.03.2024 Page No. 15 of 15