Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 542 (MAD)

C. Ramalingam v. S. Geetha

2014-02-28

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner in both these petitions is the de facto complainant in Crime No.431 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. The respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 are the Accused 1 and 2 and the 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.11466 of 2013 is the 3rd Accused. The said case has been registered for alleged offence u/s.406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. The respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2013 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 28.02.2013 granted anticipatory bail to them. While, the 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.11466 of 2013 filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.759 of 2013 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 08.03.2013 granted anticipatory bail to her. Seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Accused 1 and 2 and the 3rd Accused, the de facto complainant in the said case is before this court with these criminal original petitions in Crl.O.P.No.11467 and 11466 of 2013 respectively. 2. On service of notice, the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 have entered appearance and they have also filed their counter affidavits individually. The notice sent to the 1st respondent/A3 in Crl.O.P.No.11466 of 2013 has not been returned and she has not entered appearance neither in person nor through a counsel. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both petitions and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for State in both petitions and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013. I have also perused the records in both the criminal original petitions carefully. 4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in both the petitions will be referred to as the de facto complainant and the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 and the 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.11466 of 2013 will be referred to as A1 and A2 and A3 respectively. 5. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- A total extent of 1 Acre and 42 Cents of land comprised in S.No.407/3B at Perungalathur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, absolutely belongs to the Government. This land is situated just outside the Chennai Corporation's limit. 5. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- A total extent of 1 Acre and 42 Cents of land comprised in S.No.407/3B at Perungalathur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, absolutely belongs to the Government. This land is situated just outside the Chennai Corporation's limit. The classification of the land in all Government records is shown as "vacant land" (Tharisu). 6. The 1st Accused in this case is one Viswanathan. He is a document writer in the Sub Registrar's Office at Tambaram. He knew very well about the said land and also the fact that it belongs to the Government. The 2nd Accused in this case Mrs. Asaliammal is his wife. In connivance with her husband, with a view to grab the said property, the 2nd Accused executed a General Power of Attorney on 28.08.1995 in favour of A3 – Mrs. Geetha on 28.08.1995. A3 - Mrs. Geetha is none else than an Assistant of A1. Acting on the said General Power of Attorney dated 20.08.1995, A3 – Mrs. Geetha had laid plots on the said property and sold away the plots to various persons. One such plot was sold out by A3 – Mrs. Geetha by a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2011 in favour of one Sri. S. Shanmugham. Sri. S. Shanmugam died subsequently leaving behind Accused 4, 5 and 6 as his legal heirs. Accused 4, 5 and 6 had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mrs. R. Jayanthi, namely, the wife of the de facto complainant on 06.11.2008. Now, it has come to light that A1 and A2 had created and forged the revenue records as though the A2 had title for the property. With these allegations the said case has been registered. 7. In the petition in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2013 filed before the court below A1 and A2, in paragraph 1, A1 and A2 has stated that on 05.01.1972 Mrs. Asaliammal (A2) purchased the said property measuring 1 Acre and 42 Cents from one T.N. Selvaperumal by means of an unregistered sale deed and thus, she had title for the property and it was thereafter Mrs. Asaliammal (A2) executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the A3 -Mrs. Geetha. Asaliammal (A2) purchased the said property measuring 1 Acre and 42 Cents from one T.N. Selvaperumal by means of an unregistered sale deed and thus, she had title for the property and it was thereafter Mrs. Asaliammal (A2) executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the A3 -Mrs. Geetha. It is further stated in the petition that the revenue records such as, Chitta extract, Adangal extract, etc., obtained from the revenue authorities show that patta stood in the name of Mrs. Asaliammal (A2). 8. Before the court below, the above documents appear to have been filed. Since the Chitta extract, Adangal extract and other revenue records stood in the name of Mrs. Asaliammal (A2), the court below granted anticipatory bail to A1 and A2 and also to A3 by allowing Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.No.759 of 2013 by order dated 28.02.2013 and 08.03.2013 respectively. 9. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that the land is a poramboke land and A2 – Mrs. Asaliammal had no title at all. He would further submit that Chitta and Adangal extracts and other revenue records produced before the court below were all forged and, as a matter of fact, they were not at all issued by the revenue authorities. 10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has also made similar submissions. Therefore, this court has directed the learned counsel appearing for the Accused 1 and 2 who are respondents before this court in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 to produce such revenue records showing title of A2 for the property in dispute. The learned counsel for the accused produced the Adangal extract and the Kist Receipt dated 27.11.1991 respectively issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Perungalathur and also the Adangal extract said to have been issued by the Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar, Tambaram on 21.12.2009. The learned counsel for the Accused 1 and 2 has filed a memo wherein in paragraph 2 to 4 it is stated as follows:- "2. The counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondent communicated the above mentioned direction to the respondents herein through one Jagadish son of Mr. Viswanathan, the 1st respondent in the instant case. 3. The said Jagadish son of Viswanathan handed over the original documents to the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on 26.02.2014. The said documents so handed over are as follows:- 1. Viswanathan, the 1st respondent in the instant case. 3. The said Jagadish son of Viswanathan handed over the original documents to the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on 26.02.2014. The said documents so handed over are as follows:- 1. Adangal extract dated 27.11.1991 in the name of Asliammal 2. Adangal extract dated 21.12.2009 in the name of Asliammal 3. Kist receipt dated 27.11.1991 in the name of Asliammal 4. The counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents in obedience to the direction of this Hon'ble Court produced the above said documents on 26.02.2014. 11. The above said documents, namely, Adangal extract said to have been issued by the Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar, Tambaram, Adangal extract and the Kist Receipt said to have been issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Perungalathur were all directed to be verified whether they are genuine or not. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, CCB, Team III, Veppery, Chennai, after verifying the above documents, has filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, he has stated as follows:- "When the matter came up for hearing on 26.02.2014 , this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct me to verify the following documents furnished by the Counsel for the accused and submit a report on 27.02.2014 before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. 1] Chitta in S.No.407/3B , measuring 057.5-4.26 – Fasli 1400 Chengalpet MGR District, Saidapet Taluk, 134 , Perungalathur, issued by V.A.O., 167 Perungalathur District, 27.11.1991. 2] Chitta in S.NO.407/3B, measuring 1.42-4.26 – Fasli 1383 – 2] S.No.407/3B, measuring 057.05-4.26 – Fasli 1414 Chengalpet District, Saidapet Taluk, 167, Perungalathur Village issued by Headquarter Dy. Tahsildar, 167, Perungalathur District, in C.A.No.7/2009 A4 dated 21.12.2009. 3. I submit that based on the above direction of this Hon'ble High Court, Madras, I made a request on 26.02.2014 to the Tahsildar, Tmt.Rama, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai, to verify the land records and furnished a detailed report so as to submit the same before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. Based on my above request, Tmt.Rama, the Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai, submitted a report today [27.2.2014] after verification of the above land records, stated that the above said land properties are belongs to the Government poramboke land. [sic] In that report, the said Tahsildar also stated that the documents furnished by the Counsel for the accused, before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, are forged one and not genuine. [sic] In that report, the said Tahsildar also stated that the documents furnished by the Counsel for the accused, before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, are forged one and not genuine. The said Tahsildar further stated that the seal of the Tahsildar Office, Tambaram, contained in the documents furnished by the Counsel for the accused is also a fake one. Therefore, as directed by this Hon'ble High Court, Madras, I am enclosing herewith furnishing the report got from the Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble High Court, Madras." Along with the said affidavit, he has also produced a letter received from the Tahsildar, Tambaram in Na.Ka.523/2014/B1 dated 27.02.2014 wherein the Tahsildar has stated that these documents were not at all issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, and the office seal found on the same itself is a forged seal. 12. From the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that there is a fraud played in the matter. The documents, which have been produced before this court themselves, were all forged, for which, there are prima facie materials. From the facts it is prima facie seen that by forging the Chitta and Adangal extracts and other revenue records, Accused 1 to 3 have claimed title falsely, grabbed the property and sold away the same to too many purchasers. Many of them may be innocent purchasers. The de facto complainant's wife is one of the victims of such fraud. But, before the court below by producing the very same forged documents, the Accused 1 and 2 and also A3 have obtained anticipatory bail. Fraud played upon the court cannot be viewed lightly. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the anticipatory bail granted by the court below to Accused 1 and 2 and 3rd Accused, because of the fraud played upon the court by the Accused by producing the fake documents, cannot be allowed to sustain. Therefore, I am inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to Accused 1 and 2 and also to the 3rd Accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. 13. Therefore, I am inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to Accused 1 and 2 and also to the 3rd Accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. 13. In the result, both the criminal original petitions are allowed; the anticipatory bail granted to Accused 1 and 2 by order dated 28.02.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2013 and the anticipatory bail granted to the 3rd Accused by order dated 08.03.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.759 of 2013 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, are hereby cancelled. 14. The Registry is directed to retain the Xerox copies of the above three documents produced before this court along with the Memo filed by the learned counsel for the Accused 1 and 2 in safe custody along with the present case records and forward the above said original papers, namely, Adangal extract said to have been issued by the Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, and the Adangal extract and Kist Receipt said to have been issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Perungalathur Village, in the name of 2nd Accused – Mrs. Asaliammal, to the respondent police herein viz., The Inspector of Police, CCB, Team III, E.D.F.II, Vepery, Chennai 600 007, for necessary action in accordance with law. 15. The respondent shall investigate into the entire episode thoroughly and file an appropriate final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.