Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
State - Appellants
Vs.
V.P.R. Raja and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 21687 of 2013
Decided On : 31-07-2019
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 91 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order XIII - Rule 9(1) - claim right over property - F.I.R - Petitioner is Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell Salem who is an Investigating Officer in Crime offence Sections respondents are accused - During course of investigation, an unregistered sale agreement which is purported to be forged document based on which accused were claiming right over property said unregistered sale agreement is said to have been signed by as seller and Raja as purchaser - said who is one of witness in Crime had denied the execution of unregistered sale agreement On investigation came to know that respondents had filed a civil suit before District and filed the said document - For securing said document and to send it to Forensic Lab petitioner had filed a petition Section before Judicial Magistrate - Held, Petitioners contention is that in order to establish the prosecution case beyond any reasonable doubt forensic laboratory report with regard to the genuineness of the documents is essential - Therefore police was justified in requesting that original documents to handed over to them so that document could be sent for forensic science laboratory for their opinion - Petitioner being a Public Servant duty is cast to investigate crime complete investigation within a stipulated time and he has no interest in outcome of Civil Suit - This Court has issued direction on the civil side subjecting documents forensic study in the Government Forensic Laboratory - Procedural wrangles cannot withhold investigation of crime statutory function sale agreement pending before the learned District shall hand over original copy of the agreement to the petitioner or to the Court Officer deputed in this regard after keeping certified copy of said document in the file of Civil Investigating officer to submit the documents for forensic study to the Forensic Science Department Chennai – Further the Investigating officer is directed to keep the said document in safe custody after receiving same from the Forensic Science Laboratory and to produce it before the Civil or Criminal Court as and when asked for - In meanwhile Crime has been transferred to Designated Court or Special Court concerned Court has follow same procedure Director Forensic Department is directed to give top priority to examine documents and submit forensic report preferably within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of the documents - Petitioner police is directed to complete investigation within period of three months date receipt of Forensic report and to file final report within that period - Superintendent of Police Salem District is directed to monitor progress of the investigation and ensure that there is no further delay and time limits are adhered to - On filing of the charge sheet if it is positive charge sheet trial Court is directed to give top priority and to proceed trial on a day-to-day basis and also directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of filing of charge sheet - Petition allowed
ORDER :
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the learned District Munsif, Attur to send the original unregistered sale agreement dated 20.01.2006 to the Forensic Handwriting Expert, Chennai through the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Attur for the comparison of the signature of the witness Ramasamy and also for the Expert's opinion of the Forensic Handwriting Expert, Chennai and set aside the order passed in C.M.P. No. 409 of 2013, dated 03.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Attur.
2. The petitioner is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Salem, who is an Investigating Officer in Crime No. 1 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 465, 471, 448, 506(i) r/w. 3(i)(V)(VIII) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. The respondents are the accused Nos. 1 to 7.
3. During the course of investigation, an unregistered sale agreement dated 20.01.2006, which is purported to be forged document based on which the accused were claiming right over the property. The said unregistered sale agreement is said to have been signed by one Ramasamy of Attur as seller and by V.P.R. Raja as purchaser. The said Ramasamy, who is one of the witness in Crime No. 1 of 2012 had denied the execution of unregistered sale agreement. On investigation, it came to be know that the respondents had filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 205 of 2011 before the learned District Munsif, Attur and filed the said document.
4. For securing the said document and to send it to the Forensic Lab, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Attur in Crl. M.P. No. 409 of 2013. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Attur by order dated 03.07.2013 dismissed the petition on the ground that the F.I.R. in Crime No. 1 of 2012 was at the investigation stage and the final report was yet to be filed before it and hence, the petition is not maintainable in law and further held that the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Attur has no power to issue summon to the learned District Munsif, Attur at the investigation stage to produce the sale agreement, which is Sub-Judice in O.S. No. 205 of 2011. Against which the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.
5. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
5.1. The defacto complainant Kamalam purchased 6.56 acres of land on 24.07.2007 in Keeripatty Village in S. No. 381/1A, 382/1B and 624/1C through an auction conducted by the Sub Court, Attur. The brothers of the defacto complainant Boopathy and Selvam had purchased 6.45 acres of land on 13.09.2010 in the same village in S. No. 382/2 from Ramasamy of Attur. Thus, a total of 13 acres of land were in the possession of defacto complainant and her brothers. This being so, the 1st respondent viz., V.P.R. Raja, Town Secretary of D.M.K. Party and formerly Town Panchayat Vice President of Thammampatty, created a forged unregistered sale agreement dated 20.01.2006 prior to the date of purchase of land by the defacto complainant and her brothers for the entire 13.10 acres of land in the above mentioned Surveys. The said unregistered sale agreement was signed by the said Ramasamy as seller and by V.P.R. Raja as purchaser.
5.2. On 21.05.2011, V.P.R. Raja along with his wife Kavitha, his mother Dhanabakkiam and others had trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and scolded her by using her caste name and assaulted her and forcibly encroached the said land. When the defacto complainant along with others had approached the V.P.R. Raja and his family members on 30.12.2011 to explain the way of purchase of land and to question about the encroachment, the 1st respondent again abused defacto complainant in front of others by using her caste name. Hence, the defacto complainant preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Salem for which a case in Crime No. 1 of 2012 has been registered for the offence under Sections 465, 471, 448, 506(i) r
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
