Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/766/2013dismissed

Lucas v. Chinnathai

2017-07-06Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:06.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C(MD).No.766 of 2013 Lucas ... Petitioner/Complainant -Vs1.Chinnathai 2.Chandrasekaran 3.Purushothaman 4.Sundiralingam 5.Murugan 6.M.Laksmanan 7.Sirajudeen 8.S.Fathima

9. The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

10. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

... Respondents /Respondents Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 20.09.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.644 of 2013 in C.C.No.54 of 2012 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and set aside the same and consequently direct the abovesaid learned Special Magistrate to forward the Petitioner's complaint to the Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District under section, 156(3) of Cr.P.C. So as to register an FIR. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For R1,R2,R5 to R8 : Mr.M.P.Senthil For R3 & R4 : No appearance For R9 & R10 : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran ******

O R D E R

Challenging the dismissal order passed in the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, filed by the petitioner, the present criminal revision case has been filed.

2.According to the petitioner, his mother purchased a property to an extent of 1 acre 53 cents from one Anthony Valan. That Anthony Valan in turn purchased the said property from one Rajadurai Nadar. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.2004. Based on the same, the petitioner has been enjoying the said property. Subsequently, the respondents 1 to 5, who are the legal heirs of Rajadurai Nadar have partitioned their properties including the property purchased by the petitioner's mother, through a partition deed No.40/2006, dated 06.01.2006. Hence, the petitioner had given a complaint against the respondents 1 to 7 herein on the ground that they committed fraud by creating a forged partition deed. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District dismissed the said complaint stating that no prima facie case has been made out. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed.

3. I have heard Mr.R.Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.P.Senthil, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 5 to 8 and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents 9 and 10 and perused the records carefully. 4.Considering the materials available on record and on perusing the order, it is seen that the property purchased by the petitioner's mother is not included in the partition deed No.40/2006, dated 06.01.2006, effected between respondents 1 to 5 and considering the same, the court below dismissed the petition and I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AD-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To.

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

3. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

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

+1 cc to Mr.S.R.Anbarasu , Advocate in SR.No. 64350 vs AE/MR/KKR/SAR1/17.07.2017/3P/6C Crl.R.C(MD).No.766 of 2013 06.07.2017