Robin George v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:29/04/2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN and Crl.MP(MD)No.9144 of 2018 Robin George : Petitioner/A2 Vs.

1.State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Tuticorin District.

(Crime No.32 of 2015) : R1/Complainant 2.Rajammal : R2/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.32 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Criminal side) For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.Veilmuthu

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking quashment of the Crime No.32 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief:- The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the following allegations:- The property measuring about 2 Acres and 17.5 cents in survey No.176/4 belongs to her deceased husband namely Rengaraj. After his death, she became the owner of the property. By way of impersonation, the accused persons registered the sale deed in 1/3

respect of the above said property, in which the co-accused were also colluding. The sale deed was registered, on 23/05/2011. So based upon the above said complaint, the case was registered against eight persons in Crime No.32 of 2015 for the offences under sections 120(b), 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the second accused namely Robin George.

4.Pending hearing of the petition, compromise talk was going on between the parties. So on the ground of reporting compromise, the matter was repeatedly adjourned. Finally, it was submitted that the compromise was reached between the parties. But however, mutation of the revenue records has not been completed. So on that ground, a direction was issued to the petitioner to co-operate with the second respondent in completing mutation of the revenue records. He has also filed an undertaking affidavit. Again on that ground, it was repeatedly got adjourned. Finally, it was submitted before this court that mutation of revenue records have also been effected.

Since, compromise has been reached between the parties and proper document has also been executed in respect of the above said disputed property and the mutation of the revenue records have also been effected, I find that no purpose is going to be served in keeping this petition pending. Recording the submission made by both parties, this petition is liable to be allowed. 5.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.32 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent is quashed in entirely. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) er Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

2/3

To, 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Tuticorin District.

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

29.04.2022 SE(CO) GC(30.06.2022) 3P 3C 3/3