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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3453

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
K. Srinivasa - Petitioner
Versus
The state rep by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No.2990 of 2017 and Crl. M.P. No.2149 of 2017
Decided on : 22-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Thiyagarajan For Mr. D. Senthil Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Bharath Chackravarthy

Headnote:

Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 482, 468 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 448, 468, 471, 506(i) r/w 34 - PCR Act 1955 - Section 7(i) (d) - Registration Act - Section 68(2), 83(1) – Punishment for criminal intimidation - Punishment for house-trespass - Forgery for purpose of cheating - Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for entire records - An element of fraud had been prima facie committed and once a document is proved to be sham before law, subsequent documents would become null and void by default (Para 11).

Findings of Court – It is seen that alleged incident taken place and FIR was registered after a period of one year from date of alleged occurrence - Further, as matter is in civil nature, second respondent ought to have moved Civil Court for appropriate remedy, but he resorts to criminal proceedings against petitioner herein - Further, petitioner is not aware of second respondent and that being case, petitioner could not know what caste he belongs to and said allegation is made purposely with malafide intentions against petitioner herein - Though Revenue officials were present in scene of occurrence, first respondent police failed to enquire them in this regard - Further, without conducting any investigation on complaint of petitioner based on order passed by this Court and order passed by District Registrar, first respondent police has registered a counter complaint against petitioner without any reasons - Therefore, FIR registered against petitioner is abuse of process of law.

Result – Criminal Original petition allowed.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the entire records in Crime No.1 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent police herein. Viz. The Inspector police, PCR Cell, Puducherry and Quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sridharan S/o. Varadarajan claiming to be the owner of the immovable property situated at Thambu Naicker Street, Puducherry, comprised in TS No. 231 and Re-Survey No. 239 Part appointed the 2nd respondent herein namely T. Kalaimaran as his lawful power agent, by way of General of Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2015, registered as Document No.3033 of 2015, on the file of the SRO, Puducherry. Based on the said Power of Attorney, on 17.12.2015 at about 10.30 am, while the 2nd respondent herein accompanied by the Revenue surveyor to measure the aforesaid property, the petitioner threatened the 2nd respondent to face dire consequence and insulted him by using his caste name. On receipt of the complaint made by the complainant/2nd respondent herein , the 1st respondent police have registered the case in Crime No.1 of 2016 for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 7(i) (d) of PCR Act 1955. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Original Petition before this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid property was owned and possessed by the paternal Grand Father namely Mr. Seenivasa Udayar, of the petitioner and he had put up a building and was running rice mill originally in the name and style of "Thangam Rice Mill" and he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. After his demise, the grand mother namely Mrs. Kalaiammal, of the petitioner, their children Selvanathan@ Audiappatham and Mr.Kuber@Krishnappan who is the petitioner's father entered into a Partition Deed on 31.03.1999 and the same was registered as Document No.2480 of 1999, on the file of Sub Registrar Office Pondicherry, in which the portion of the aforesaid property was allotted to petitioner's father Mr.Kuber@Krishnappan. Ever since the petitioner's father is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property and running the aforesaid rice mill and subsequently changed the name of the rice mill as "Srinivasa Flour Mill" and the same is functioning till this date. The Tahsildar, Pondichery also issued a patta bearing No. 785 and Extract Settlement Registrar for Land and Town in the name of petitioner's father and paternal uncle name to confirm their possession and enjoyment of the said property. While being so, suddenly on 17.12.2015 at 10.30 am, the 2nd Respondent who is the de-facto complainant came to the property along with few unidentified persons claiming that he is the General Power Agent of Mr.Sridharan S/o. Mr.Varadharajan, residing at Chennai-75, vide a Deed of General Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2015, registered as Document No.3033 of 2015, on the file of SRO Puducherry, as if the said Sridharan to be the owner of the said property which is belonged to the petitioner's father and had appointed him to deal with the same. To shock and surprise to hear the same, the petitioner has narrated the aforesaid facts to the 2nd respondent herein, but he did not consider petitioner's request. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent threatened the petitioner to demolish the building and vacate and hand over the same to him within a period of fifteen days failing which, he had threatened the petitioner that he would face dire consequences. In the mean time, on verification and perusal of the said legal heirship Certificate dated 18.07.2013 relied by the said Sridharan which claimed to be issued by Tahsildar, Pammal is absolutely false and the legal heirship certificate is fabricated and created in order to extort the property of the petitioner. Pammal comes within Kancheepuram district, vide RTI reply Ref. No. RC 3628/2016 dated 04.03.2016 wherein the Publi

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 Back to top