SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 3448

M.V.MURALIDARAN
P. Muthu – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep by Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch-II, Chennai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N. Manokaran, Adv., P. Govindarajan, Adv., G.V. Sridharan, Adv.

JUDGMENT

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition to call for the records in Crime No.10 of 2012 on the file of Central Crime Branch-II (Anti Land Grabbing Cell), Chennai for the offence under Sections 468, 471, 387, 448, 506(i) read with Section 34 I.P.C., and quash the same.

2. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the 1st respondent alleging that they have created documents and criminally intimidated them in the guise of claiming ownership over the property measuring an extent of 27 cents in Survey No.27/47, Pammal Village.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had inherited an extent of 27 cents in S.F.No.27/47, Pammal village and he appointed one Ganesan Maniyan, Partner of Vijay Associates as his power of attorney holder for the purpose of developing the land. The said power agent started construction after getting necessary permission and approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Pammal Town Panchayat. While so, the petitioners started disputing the ownership of the complainant and they have filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu to cancel the patta. By the p




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top