Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
K.Palanisamy - Petitioner
Vs.
The Inspector of Police & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Original Petition No.3961 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2941 and 5081 of 2017
Decided On : 28-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Jothi for Mr. M.C.Govindan
For the Respondent:Mr. C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Mr. Subramaniam, Mr. C.Samadharma Arasu
The duty of the police to conduct a full-fledged investigation, the limitation of resolving disputed questions of fact in a quash application, and the inadmissibility of considering mala fides at the quash application stage.
Headnote:
Land Grabbing - Quashing of FIR - IPC 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 341, 506(i) - RTI Act - Investigation Duty - Quash Application - Prima Facie Materials
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR filed against them for land grabbing based on allegations of fabricated documents and encumbrances created by the accused. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the property for a valuable consideration and initiated a suit for declaration of ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed based on information obtained under the RTI Act, emphasizing the duty of the police to conduct a full-fledged investigation. It also ruled that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in a quash application and mala fides cannot be considered at this stage.
Issues: Validity of FIR quash application based on RTI Act information, duty of police to investigate, disputed questions of fact, and consideration of mala fides in quash application.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the duty of the police to conduct a thorough investigation, stating that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in a quash application. It also ruled that mala fides cannot be considered at the quash application stage.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police was directed to monitor the investigation and complete it expeditiously.
This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to FIR No.14 of 2016 dated 07.11.2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Namakkal District and quash the same.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent/de facto complainant, the first respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.14 of 2016 on 07.11.2016 under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 341 and 506(i) IPC against Palanisamy [A1], Kalaivani [A2] and Uma Maheshwari [A3], for quashing which, Palanisamy [A1] is before this Court.
3. Heard Mr.N..Jothi, learned counsel representing Mr.M.C.Govindan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner/accused, Mr.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the first respondent-State, Mr.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the de facto complainant/R2 and Mr.C.Samadharma Arasu, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.
4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it may be necessary to set out the allegations in the FIR. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he purchased 897 sq.ft. of land in Devanankurichi Village, Natham Survey No.89/1 on 08.03.1990 from one Palanisamy (not the petitioner herein), vide Document No.459/1990 and 99 sq.ft. of land from one Natesan on 13.11.1991, vide Document No.3358/1991; he applied patta for the said land and after survey by the revenue officials, Natham Patta No.662-A was issued for the said land and during survey, it was found that the said land has been given New Survey No.313/8; a building was constructed on the said land after obtaining due permission and the building was assigned Door No.5/103F; electricity connection was obtained for the said building; the property was mortgaged along with other properties with Andhra Bank, Erode Branch in 1995 and loan was obtained by deposit of title deeds, vide Document No.2774/2007; while so, encumbrances were created by the accused in the said land, inasmuch as a bogus assignment order was fabricated in the name of Kalaivani [A2] and her daughter Uma Maheshwari [A3], with which, the land was sold to the petitioner, vide Document Nos.4075/2016 and 4076/2016 on 04.07.2016; thereafter, on 04.11.2016, the petitioner threatened the de facto complainant calling upon him to handover vacant possession of the property to him. Hence, the complaint and the consequent FIR.
5. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner neatly formulated his submissions as under:
[a] The de facto complainant has no title to the property.
[b] Information obtained under the Right to Information Act (for short "the RTI Act") from the Office of the District Collector shows that the said property was classified as 'Natham Government Poromboke' and was shown as vacant land and patta was granted to landless poor, viz., Kalaivani [A2] and Uma Maheshwari [A3].
[c] The petitioner purchased the property for a valuable consideration from Kalaivani [A2] and Uma Maheshwari [A3] after obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the Tahsildar.
[d] The Village Administrative Officer had issued possession certificate to the petitioner.
[e] The subsequent revenue/public documents such as adangal, chitta, reflect the name of the petitioner.
[f] The petitioner has filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.175 of 2017 before the District Court, Namakkal, impleading the de facto complainant and the revenue authorities for a declaration that the property belongs to him.
[g] The provisions of Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 341 and 506(i) IPC will not be attracted.
[h] The petitioner and the de facto complainant are political rivals and therefore, a false case has been foisted on the petitioner and hence, the FIR requires to be quashed.
6. Per contra, Mr.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that even in the sale deed Document No.514 of 1984 dated 09.02.1984, Kalaivani [A2] has signed as witness and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the land was assigned to Kal
