Back
V. SIVAGNANAM
Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Both the Criminal Revision Cases had been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to set aside the order of the learned Special Judge, Land Grabbing Court II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai 600 003, dated 11.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2022 in C.C.No.14 of 2021 by allowing the revision.)
Common Order:
1.Both the Criminal Revision Cases have been filed against the impugned order dated 11.11.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2022 in C.C.No.14 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Court II Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai and to discharge the petitioners from the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2021.
2. Since the issues involved in both the Criminal Revisiions are arising out of C.C.No.31 of 2022, both the appeals have been heard together and disposed off by this Common Order.
3. The fact of the case is that the defacto complainant claims that the property in Paimash No.366/1, T.S.No.88, Reddy 1st street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai, to an extent of 16,989 sq.ft., along with some other properties originally belonged to one Mr.K.Govindha Reddiar, S/o. Kandhappa Reddiar, which he inherited in the capacity of a legal heir. After the de
The court affirmed the trial Judge's decision to return original sale deed documents to purported bona fide purchasers, ruling the de-facto complainant lacked established title over the property.
The validity of documents, probative value, and admissibility of documents cannot be examined at the stage of framing charges and can be addressed during trial. The defense taken by the accused canno....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to frame charges based on prima facie evidence, even in cases involving civil disputes and criminal prosecution.
The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and with abundant caution, and criminal proceedings should not be used to settle purely civil disputes.
Execution of sale deeds exceeding a co-sharer’s share does not constitute forgery or cheating, reaffirming that civil disputes should not be criminalized without clear offences being present.
The court emphasized the limitations of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and highlighted that the High Court cannot delve into the disputed question of facts while considerin....
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
