Sufficient prima facie evidence exists for conspiracy and fraudulent transactions regarding temple land; discharge not warranted at this stage.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner in both the criminal revisions is challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, in Crl. M.P. No.973 of 2019 dated 11.02.2021. Since the issues involved in both criminal revisions are identical, and both parties are challenging the same order, these revisions are taken up for disposal through this common order.

2. For clarity and ease of understanding, since the revisions have been filed solely against the order passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, the petitioner in Crl. R.C. (MD) No.320 of 2021 (filed by the Inspector of Police) will be hereinafter referred to as the "respondent," and the petitioner in Crl. R.C. (MD) No.1416 of 2024 will be hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner."

3. The case of the prosecution giving rise to these revisions, in brief, is that:

3.1. The wetland situated in Sivarakkottai Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, in S.No.175/13, Patta No.1597, covering an extent of 44 cents, was assigned in favour of Shri Vinayaga Temple under a Ryotwari Patta on 04.08.1969 by the Settlement Tahsildar, Madurai. The land was managed by Ramasamy Pandaram and Velusamy Pandaram, who served as the Poosaris (priests) of the temple.

3.2. The petitioner, with the intention of establishing an educational institution, formed a trust in the name of M.K. Alagiri Charitable Trust, which was registered on 03.05.2000 before the Sub-Registrar, Palanganatham, in Document No.305 of 2000. Later, the name of the trust was amended to M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust through a registered deed, Document No.1795 of 2008, at the Sub-Registrar’s office, Palanganatham, Madurai District. To achieve the goal of establishing an engineering college, the petitioner / first accused decided to purchase land in and around Sivarakkottai Village. For this purpose, the petitioner engaged the second accused, Sampath Kumar, in the transaction concerning the purchase of land. Subsequently, the second accused executed a sale deed in favour of the first accused.

3.3. In the process of purchasing land intended for the construction of an educational institution, the petitioner conspired with the second accused. They made the two Poosaris, Ramasamy Pandaram and Velusamy Pandaram, execute an exchange deed with the third accused, Aathilakshmi. The said two poozaries, who are arrayed as sixth and seventh accused jointly registered the exchange deed with the third accused. However, instead of using the correct Patta No.1597, they misquoted the Patta number as 1270 in order to conceal their fraudulent acquisition of the temple land.

3.4. The land in question belongs to the temple, and the Poosaris, Ramasamy Pandaram and Velusamy Pandaram (the sixth and seventh accused), had no legal rights to execute any deed of conveyance without prior permission from the competent authority, as per the provisions of the Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The statement recorded from the witnesses and the materials collected during the investigation clearly indicate that the petitioner and second accused conspired with the Poosaris to illegally grab the temple land. The Poosaris executed the exchange deed with the third accused on 30.06.2008, which was registered at the Sub-Registrar office, Thirumangalam, under Document No.6199 of 2008.

3.5. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the third accused sold the land to the second accused on the same day (30.06.2008), and the sale deed was registered as Document No.6200 of 2008. The sale deed also incorrectly mentioned Patta No.1270 instead of the correct Patta No.1597.

3.6. After executing the exchange and sale deeds fraudulently, the accused deliberately kept the land idle for an extended period, ensuring that no objections were raised by the Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments or any other concerned parties. Subsequently, they procured other nearby properties from variou