Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 334 (MAD)

K. Sundaram v. State

2016-01-28

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2016
ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents herein to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No. 69/2014 on the file of the 4th respondent herein, to some other investigating agency, preferably, the 3rd respondent and to take action against the accused and to investigate the matter and further to file a final report. 2. The petitioner contends that he borrowed money on different occasions, from one Immanuel (A1), totalling to a sum of Rs.11 lakhs, repayable with 2% interest. The said Immanuel was introduced to the petitioner by one Balakrishnan (A5), who was staying in the petitioner's residence. In respect of the loan amount, one Stephen (A2), who is the son-in-law of said Emanuel and Mahal Sahul Abbas (A3) made the petitioner to execute a mortgage deed in respect of his house property as a collateral security. Further, the petitioner's signatures were obtained on three blank pronotes towards security for the said loan. Besides, they also got three pronotes executed by the petitioner's son worth Rs.3 lakhs each in their favour. 3. Though 2% interest was originally agreed to be charged, as the petitioner was unable to pay the interest amount regularly, the accused started demanding 5% interest on the loan amount. On 04.04.2012, the second accused, namely, Stephen, got a settlement deed for Rs.15 lakhs executed by the petitioner, in respect of the petitioner's property, by coercion, for the loan amount. Even thereafter, the accused persons demanded Rs.26 lakhs by calculating interest on the loan amount at 5%. Then, the petitioner executed a sale deed dated 19.12.2012, in respect of his property, in favour of the said Immanuel and his wife Lily Pushpam, the fourth accused. After entering into the settlement deed, the accused persons started collecting rents from various tenants in the said property belonging to the petitioner and did not produce any account of amounts collected from his tenants. While so, on 13.02.2014, the accused persons, along with some rowdy elements, came to the petitioner's house and again demanded Rs. 26 lakhs from the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 13.02.2014 narrating the entire facts to the 4th respondent. As no action was taken, he sent another complaint on 17.02.2014 to the respondents. While so, on 13.02.2014, the accused persons, along with some rowdy elements, came to the petitioner's house and again demanded Rs. 26 lakhs from the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 13.02.2014 narrating the entire facts to the 4th respondent. As no action was taken, he sent another complaint on 17.02.2014 to the respondents. Even thereafter, there was no response, which made the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar under Section 156(iii) Cr.P.C. to register the complaint given by him to the 3rd and 4th respondents. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, by order dated 10.03.2014 in Crl.M.P. No. 1268 of 2014, directed the 4th respondent to register the petitioner's complaint. Based on the said direction, the 4th respondent registered a case in Crime No. 69 of 2014 on 11.04.2014 for offences undeer Sections 147, 294(b), 427, 506(i) I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that even after the registration of FIR, the 4th respondent has not taken proper steps to investigate the matter and to file the final report. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking the aforesaid relief. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. When the matter came up before this Court on 26.06.2014, this Court, considering the submissions made on either side, directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent Police on 30.06.2014 at 10.30a.m.; produce all the documents necessary for investigation and also directed the respondent Police to enquire the petitioner. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 04.07.2014, this Court directed the 4th respondent to place the entire Case Diary before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, who in turn, was directed to call for the petitioner and enquire into the matter and file a status report before this Court. Accordingly, the status report was filed on 21.08.2014. 6. The status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Sub Division, Virudhunagar District, would reveal that the petitioner had suppressed many materials with regard to the transactions effected by him in respect of his property, which is a land in S. No. 45/3 Plot Nos. Accordingly, the status report was filed on 21.08.2014. 6. The status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Sub Division, Virudhunagar District, would reveal that the petitioner had suppressed many materials with regard to the transactions effected by him in respect of his property, which is a land in S. No. 45/3 Plot Nos. 13 & 14 ( house site) intended for commercial complex in Kattukuthagai karisal Kulam, (Sevalpatti Utkadai), Kariapatti, and that the said land was involved in as many as 19 transactions, at the instance of the petitioner, involving different persons, from whom the petitioner received advance amounts and later, cancelled the same. The report also states that the said fact was suppressed by the petitioner in the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. Further, the petitioner had created a bogus encumbrance certificate suppressing the earlier transactions in the said EC certificate and produced the same before the LIC, Housing Corporation, Madurai Branch. Apart from the above, as per the report, the petitioner had pledged the documents relating to Plot No. 13 with the LIC of India (Housing Corporation), Madurai Branch and the original documents were kept by LIC. In the meantime, when the said property was under pledge with the LIC Housing Corporation, the same property was sold by suppression of fact of the above said mortgage with the LIC to the intending purchaser Lily Pushpam, wife of Immanuel. 7. Pursuant to the status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, this Court, on 21.08.2014, directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents and to offer an explanation for making allegations against the investigating agency. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 04.09.2014, this Court, while observing that appropriate investigation has not been done, based on the complaint given by the petitioner, even after the matter was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, at paragraph No.4, stated as follows: "4. It is represented by the petitioner that the accused is a powerful man and he is charging exorbitant interest and he got about 600 to 700 acres of land in Kariyapatti area in the name of his family members and benamis by fleecing the borrowers and taking the properties highhanded. It is represented by the petitioner that the accused is a powerful man and he is charging exorbitant interest and he got about 600 to 700 acres of land in Kariyapatti area in the name of his family members and benamis by fleecing the borrowers and taking the properties highhanded. The investigation so far conducted, is not satisfactory." Further, this Court, directed the 1st and 2nd respondents to file a status report regarding the number of cases filed (yearwise and districtwise) under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, right from its enactment in 2003 as well as to furnish the status of those cases. Thereafter, on 22.09.2014, this Court directed the respondent Police to file a report with regard to paragraph No.4 of the order dated 04.09.2014, extracted above. 8. As per the direction of this Court, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Sub Division, Virudhunagar District, submitted an additional report dated 24.09.2014 with regard to the land holdings of Immanuel and his family members stating that the said Immanuel and his family members are holding various extents of land, totalling to 116.32 acres, in and around, Kariapatty, Vaiyampatti, Iadakarai, Aathikulam, K. Karisalkulam Jogilpatty, Vakkanangundu, Thonugal Melapudupatty, Karianenethal Kannakkanendhal Kilavaneri and Kalkurichi and about 46.61 acres in Panthalkudi. Apart from the above extents of land holdings, house site and building measuring 2,55,430 sq.ft. approximately at Kariapatty area is also in the names of Immanuel, Lily Pushpam and their son Arputharaj. Paragraphs 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 of the additional report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, are usefully extracted hereunder: "4. It is submitted as per the report the said Immanuel is having 116 entries of land holding in and around Kariapatty, Vaiyampatti, Iadakarai, Aathikulam, K. Karisalkulam Jogilpatty, Vakkanangundu, Thonugal Melapudupatty, Karianenethal Kannakkanendhal Kilavaneri and Kalkurichi of various measurements totalling 116.32 acres. 5... 6. It is submitted that out of the above named persons land holdings have been registered only in the names of Immanuel, his wife Lily Pushpam, his son Arputharaj and no property is available in other's name. 7... 8. 5... 6. It is submitted that out of the above named persons land holdings have been registered only in the names of Immanuel, his wife Lily Pushpam, his son Arputharaj and no property is available in other's name. 7... 8. It is further submitted that as per the report of the Sub Registrar, Panthalkudi, Virudhunagar District, was also obtained for the land holdings of the said Immanuel and his family members, there are 16 items of entries in and around Panthalkudi only the names of Immanuel, his wife Lily Pushpam, his son Arputharaj and sin-in-law Stephen measuring 46.61 acres. 9. ... 10. It is further submitted that apart from the above mentioned land holdings, the house site and building measuring 2,55,430 sq.ft approximately at Kariapatty area is also in the names of Immanuel, his wife Lily Pushpam and his son Arputharaj. 11. Hence, it is submitted that the said Immanuel and his family members are totally holding at Kariapatty and Panthalkudi to the extent of approximately 163 acres of dry land and house site and building measuring 2,55,430 sq.ft at Kariapatty." 9. Taking into consideration, the information furnished by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Sub Division, Virudhunagar District, by way of report dated 21.08.2014 and the additional report dated 24.09.2014, this Court is of the view that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has conducted a fair investigation. However, without commenting upon the conduct of the petitioner, this Court only directs the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Sub Division, Virudhunagar District, to file the final report in respect of the case in Crime No. 69 of 2014 within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. However, without commenting upon the conduct of the petitioner, this Court only directs the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Sub Division, Virudhunagar District, to file the final report in respect of the case in Crime No. 69 of 2014 within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. As far as the land holdings in the name of Immanuel and his family members, namely, 163 acres, in Kariapatty and Panthalkudi and house site and building measuring 2,55,430 sq.ft at Kariapatty are concerned, it is appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent, namely, the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, to conduct an enquiry with regard to the properties owned by the said Immanuel and his family members, as reflected in the additional report of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Sub-Division, and send a report to the Commissioner for Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for appropriate action under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. 11. As far as the issue regarding the number of cases filed under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 is concerned, though the 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit furnishing information regarding the number of cases filed under the said Act right from 2003 and about the status of the cases filed, since a similar issue is pending before the Principal Bench of this Court, this Court is not inclined to go into the matter further. 12. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.