Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5325
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI
A.M. Mohan
Versus
The Director General of Police Govt. Of Tamil Nadu Chepauk & Another
CRL.O.P.No.19095 of 2010
Decided On : 08-12-2010
For the Petitioner:V. Giri, Senior Counsel for M/s Nathan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Hassan Mohamed Jinnah APP & R3, PL. Narayanan for PR. Dineshkumar, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory duty of the police to register a case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, as per Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Forgery - Property Dispute - Constitution of India, Article 296, Criminal Procedure Code, Section 154 - The judgment discusses the petitioner's complaint regarding the fraudulent acquisition of property belonging to an Indian national who died issueless. The court analyzes the legal provisions under Article 296 of the Constitution of India and Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing the mandatory duty of the police to register a case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence. The court directs the Deputy Commissioner, City Crime Branch, Chennai to conduct an enquiry and initiate action if any cognizable offence is made out.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks direction to register a case based on a complaint regarding the fraudulent acquisition of property belonging to an Indian national who died issueless. The complaint alleges forgery and fraudulent documents in the acquisition of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the complaint discloses prima facie cognizable offences for criminal conspiracy, creation of false and fraudulent documents, money laundering, and violation of FEMA act and Regulations. The court emphasizes the mandatory duty of the police to register a case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence.
Issues: The issues revolve around the fraudulent acquisition of property, the duty of the police to register a case based on a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, and the need for a detailed investigation into the property transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the mandatory duty of the police to register a case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, as per Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also highlights the legal provisions under Article 296 of the Constitution of India, which vests property in the State if there is no rightful owner.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner, City Crime Branch, Chennai to conduct an enquiry on the complaint pending with the CCB Team I, Chennai and initiate action if any cognizable offence is made out as per section 154(1) of Cr.P.C.
1. Petition is filed seeing a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the case on the strength of the complaint dated 2.7.2010 which is pending with the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 1st respondent to monitor the case and file periodic reports.
2. The petitioner who claims himself as a public welfare activist has come forward with the petition directing the respondents to register a case on a complaint given by him dated 2.7.2010. The complaint dated 2.7.2010 was addressed to 21 personalities including the Secretary, Department of Finance, Union of India and the Chairman, Indian Bank and the respondents.
3. The petition deals with details about one Mrs.Meerabai Dawson, an Indian by birth, married to an English, Hugh Kennath Dawson, and settled in Middlesex, United Kingdom. According to the petitioner, she owned several property in Tamil Nadu and one of the properties is situated in Town Survey No.11, Block No.21 of Adayar, Chennai of an extent of 2.37 acres, a valuable property was grabbed by the proposed accused. According to the petitioner one A.R. Housing Pvt.Ltd., tried to obtain title in a DRT auction sale and when that was thwarted, a Letters of Administration was obtained by suppressing the facts. According to the petitioner, Mrs. Meera Bai, was issueless and she had executed a Will in respect of her property in England and the executors/ administrators of the Will had obtained probate on 11.3.2002 at London. It seems the same executors had filed an application before the High Court of Madras for an ancillary probate pertaining to the property situated at Chennai and pursuant to which, the property was dealt with by the proposed accused.
4. The allegation of the petitioner is that the proposed accused have manipulated and had created false and fraudulent documents in order to grab the property of a person who died issueless. According to the petitioner, the Will executed in England was not in respect of the property at Chennai. The petitioner has pointed out many circumstances to show that the property which belong to the State by escheat has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons by creating forged and false documents.
5. The allegation of the petitioner is that the valuable property belonging to a Indian National, after whose death has to escheat to the State, was fraudulently grabbed by the persons who have created forged documents. The petitioner has given a complaint for investigation. Since the authorities have not taken any action, he has filed the present petition seeking for the above relief.
6. Mr.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had drawn our attention to the following main points calling for the intervention of this Court to exercise its power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C directing the respondent to register a case and investigate.
i) the property situated T.S. No. Town Survey No.11, Block No.21 of Adayar, Chennai, belong to one Meerabai dawson an Indian born British Citizen who died issueless after executing a Will.
ii) She died on 16.12.2001 in England.
iii) Her Will excludes the property in India. This property was substituted in a DRT auction sale. The auction purchaser tried to obtain title.
vi) Inspite of the fact that the last will of Meera Bai excluded the property in India, in 2003 a power of attorney of the executors of the estate of Meerabai Dawson filed an application for ancillary probate for the property situate in India. This was obtained by suppressing the facts.
v) An affidavit was filed on 21.8.2002, in OP No.93/1975 as if signed by Meerabai Dawson
vi) sale deed was executed by another set of power of attorneys of the executors of the estate of Meerabai Dawson in favour of one the Vickon Infrastructure and the confirming party is one A.R. Housing private limited who have tried to gain title by virtue of sale certificate dated 17.4.2003 in the DRT auction sale.
7. The learned senior counsel submitted that under Article 296 of the Constitu
