Crl.R.C.(MD).No.64 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 16.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.64 of 2023

Margret

... Petitioner/Complainant

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,

Thoothukudi,

Thoothukudi District.

... 1^st Respondent/ Respondent

2. Kulanthai Theres

3. James Xavier Raj

4. Muthu Nadar

5. K.Rajkumar

6. Maria Arul Manohar

... Respondents / Accused

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order

dated 25.07.2022 passed in Cr.M.P.No.503 of 2022 on the file of the learned

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.64 of 2023

Judicial Magistrate, (Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases), Thoothukudi,

Thoothukudi District.

For Petitioner

: Mr. Ilayaraja.R

For Respondent

: Mr. Sakthi Kumar.M

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records and

set aside the order dated 25.07.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.503 of 2022 on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Special Court for Land Grabbing

Cases), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

2. Facts in brief:

The revision petitioner has filed the petition under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C. before the trial Court with the following allegations:

The revision petitioner's father namely Siluvai Anthony, who is aged

about 86 years now and he purchased the property out of his income,

derived from the ancestral properties and from the salary of the revision

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.64 of 2023

petitioner and they were enjoying jointly. The father of the revision

petitioner affected from Diabetes for about 30 years and apart from that

heart ailments, amnesia, alzheimer, extra, he was bed ridden and he was not

able to look after his daily natural call itself. He was under the care of the

first accused. The accused No.1 and 2 knowing fully well that the property

belongs to joint family and father is in disabled condition, took the father

under the guise of attending pension enquiry, obtained settlement deed on

12.10.2021. Over the above said, she lodged a complaint before the Anti

Land Grabbing Cell, but no proper action was taken. So, the above said

petition has been filed.

3. On considering the petition, the trial Court found that it is the civil

dispute between the brother and sisters, so, on that ground, it was dismissed,

against which, this revision has been preferred.

4. At that time of enquiry, the learned Public Prosecutor required to

produce entire enquiry file with regard to the complaint that was given by

the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, extra. The learned Public

Prosecutor also produced the enquiry file.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.64 of 2023

5. Perusal of the enquiry file shows that the enquiry was undertaken

over the complaint that was given by the petitioner before the respondent

Police in C.No.612 of 2021 and the enquiry was undertaken on various

dates. Out of the enquiry, it was found that the above said settlement deed

executed by the father of the revision petitioner out of his own will. There is

no truth in the allegation. The father of the revision petitioner namely

Siluvai Anthony is appeared before the respondent Police and gave a

statement that he was taken care by the first accused namely Kuzhanthai

Therus and due to her position only, he executed the above said settlement

deed. Reading of this statement shows that allegation of the petitioner that it

was obtained by playing fraud is not true. When this was pointed out to the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner, he submitted that he is ready to

prove the physical and mental capacity of the father before the Court at that

time of the trial. When the matter was reserved for order, he im