Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
Antony Gomes - Petitioner
Versus
The State represented by The Inspector of Police & Others - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 56 of 2015
Decided On : 29-06-2015
For the Petitioner:N.R. Elango, Senior Advocate for R. Vivekananthan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, V. Arul, Government Advocate (Crl.side), R2, K. Sridhar, R3 & R4, AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Advocate for K.S. Arumugam, R5 & R6, C. Arivazhagan, Advocates.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120 (B), 419, 465, 468 and 471 – Protest Petition – Petitioner, who is the defaccto complainant in Crime on the file of the respondent/police, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2014 passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P. dismissing his protest petition as against the final report filed by the investigation officer in this case – Held, It is needless to mention that earlier, Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved over the order passed by the Court below accepting the final report filed by the investigation officer. – The Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner has been allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court with specific observation that the trial court has to hear the parties to the case, afford them opportunity and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. – Inspite of such an order passed by the court below, the trial court, without discussing many of the submissions raised before it, has passed the impugned order without any reasoning. – The impugned order has been passed by the trial court by summarily dismissing the protest petition filed by the petitioner, which is legally not sustainable. – Even on merits, Court find that the investigation officer failed to deal with the plea relating to impersonation and the report filed by the investigation officer is patently erroneous. – In such circumstances, it is necessary for the investigation officer to deal with the plea with regard to impersonation. – Order passed in Crl.M.P. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu is set aside. – Criminal Revision Case Allowed.
1. The petitioner, who is the defaccto complainant in Crime No. 41 of 2013 on the file of the respondent/police, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2014 passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P. No. 4138 of 2014 in Crime No. 41 of 2013 dismissing his protest petition as against the final report filed by the investigation officer in this case.
2. According to the revision petitioner, the land measuring an extent of 2 acres comprised in S.F. No.58/11A/2A1A1 corresponding to S.F. No.58/11A/2A1 in No.92, Eachankaranai Village, Chengalpat Taluk, Kancheepuram District was originally owned by one Rajagopal Naidu. After his death, his two sons R. Babu Naidu and R. Govindaraj sold the land to and in favour of A. Gopal, Son of Arasan by a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1984 vide document No. 2347 of 1984. After such purchase, Mr. A. Gopal, Son of Arasan had mutated the revenue records and obtained patta No.41 in his name on 25.02.1986. Subsequently, on 02.02.1999, Mr. A. Gopal, son of Arasan died and his legal heirs continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the land. On 11.12.2008, the legal heirs of A. Gopal, son of Arasan have sold the land in question in favour of M/s. Hallmark Infrastructure Private Limited. Subsequently, M/s. Hallmark Infrastructure Private Limited sold the land to and in favour of the petitioner by means of a sale deed dated 30.04.2013 and the petitioner became the owner of the land in question. On such ownership, the petitioner applied for mutation of the revenue records in respect of the land purchased by him in S.F. No.58/11A2A1A1. At that time, the petitioner came to know that a general power of attorney deed dated 31.01.2008 has been created in respect of the land owned by him by one A. Gopal, son of Appu, purportedly by impersonation. By the said power of attorney deed dated 31.01.2008, the above said Mr. A. Gopal, son of Appu impersonating himself as A. Gopal, Son of Arasan had authorised Mr. Lalith Kumar Bandari as his power agent to deal with the above said lands. On the strength of the power of attorney, Mr. Lalith Kumar Bandari had executed two sale deeds dated 04.02.2008 registered as document Nos. 892 and 893 of 2008 in respect of the lands measuring an extent of 1.27 acres and 21 cents respectively. On coming to know about the fraudulent transaction, the petitioner has given a complaint to the respondent/police based on which a case in Crime No. 41 of 2013 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 419, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC against Mr. Gopal, son of Appu and Mr. S. Mohan, Managing Director of M/s. Wisdom Housing and Properties Private Limited. In the complaint given by the petitioner, it was specifically stated that the persons who are mentioned in the complaint have conspired and colluded together with an intention to grab his land. It was further stated that in furtherance of such conspiracy, they have indulged in creating forged and fabricated documents by impersonation. According to the petitioner, the said Gopal, son of Arasan died long back however, the power of attorney has been executed by the accused person by impersonation as if it was executed by Gopal, son of Arasan, while the fact remains that he is Gopal, son of Appu. As mentioned above, the original owner A. Gopal, son of Arasan died long back. The executant of the power of attorney deed knowing fully wel that he is neither the owner of the land nor he is the real person i.e., Gopal, son of Arasan had executed the power of attorney thereby they have connived to cheat the defacto complainant.
3. Upon registration of the case, the fifth and sixth respondents herein, who are arrayed as A-1 and A-4 in Crime No. 41 of 2013 respectively, have filed Crl.OP Nos. 14228 and 14229 of 2013 before this Court praying for grant of bail. This Court, by an order dated 25.06.2013 granted bail to them subject to certain conditions. While granting bail, this C
