Madras High CourtA.R.Shridharan vs State By on 30 August, 2010Author:C.T.SelvamBench:C.T.SelvamIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 30.08.2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

Crl.O.P.No.19526 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010

A.R.Shridharan						..	Petitioner

Vs

1.State by
   Inspector of Police
   CBCID Headquarters,
   Guindy, Chennai  32.
   CBCID (X) Cr.No.64/2009

2.Rajesh Malhotra		 				..	Respondents

	Criminal Original Petition filed undersection 482of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire proceedings in CBCID (X) Crime No.64 of 2009 pending on the file of the 1st respondent against the petitioner and quash the same.

		For Petitioner	:	Mr.S.Xavier Felix
		For Respondent 1	:	Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar
						GA (Crl.Side)
		



O R D E RThe petitioner seeks to quash the case pending investigation in CBCID (X) Crime No.64 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent.2.The FIR in such case reads as follows:"M/s.VAK Engineering Pvt. Ltd., is the owner of the property comprised in T.S.No.105, 121, 122 and 138 to an extent of 11.44 acres of land in Adambakkam village, Kancheepuram District.  While so, one A.R.Sridharan S/o.A.P.Rajagopalan, the VAO of Adambakkam village along with his brother A.R.Kannan, L.Ameer s/o.Abdul Lathif, G.L.Ahmed (deceased), A.P.Rajagopalan (deceased) and R.Bhuvanammal (deceased) in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, jointly attempted to grab the lands of the company by manipulating Government records and by forging documents which were in the official custody of A.R.Sridharan for claiming title of land illegally in T.S.No.121, 122 and 138 of Adambakkam village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District belonging to the company.  The company gave a representation to the then Minister for Revenue stating the illegal activities of the above accused persons and based on the company's complaint, a comprehensive enquiry was conducted as against the accused persons by an Officer in the cadre of Deputy Collector and based on the enquiry report, the government after examining the records through Commissioner of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, came to a conclusion that A.R.Sridharan by misusing his official capacity in collusion with other accused has committed various offences and thereafter Thiru Irai Anbu, IAS, the then Collector of Kancheepuram District preferred a complaint on behalf of the Government in R.C.1/97 dated 26.01.1998 to ADGP, CBCID, Chennai and the same was taken on file by the CB-CID and charge sheet was filed on 14.06.2002 undersection 120(B)r/w.  465, 466, 467, 471, 420, 167 and 109 ofIPC.  The 1st accused A.R.Sridharan in conspiracy and connivance with other accused has committed various offences such as replacing forged paper after tearing out the original paper of town survey land register of Adambakkam village, illegally correlated Pymash No.723/3 and 724 to resurvey No.20/1 of Adambakkam village, inserted his father's name A.P.Rajagopalan against resurvey number 28/1 in the Adangals of Adambakkam village which are maintained by him obtained patta in favour of him by producing forged documents before the Asst.Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, inserted his father's name A.P.Rajagopalan in the Fair Land Register of Adambakkam village corresponding to T.S.No.121, 122 and 138 and has also committed such other offences by misusing his official capacity.  The above charge sheet is taken cognizance in C.C.No.321/2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee and it is categorically established that various interpolations have been made by the accused persons and further the same is confirmed by Handwriting Experts.  Apart from being charge sheeted for the offences of cheating, land grabbing, fraud and forgery, the accused Sridharan along with others have also been charge sheeted for offences affecting public peace and public tranquility and also affecting public order by indulging in unlawful assembly, rioting, possession of dangerous weapons, trespass and criminal intimidation for which charge sheet has been filed undersection 147,148,294(b)and506(ii)of IPC r/w.Section 7(1) (a)of C.L.A. Act and the charge sheet is taken cognizance in C.C.No.176/2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee.  While the position being so, apart from the various offences committed by the accused persons, the company came to know that the accused person, suppressing the charge sheet against them, has conspired together with several other persons and submitted an application to the CMDA for obtaining Planning permission with several new forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of land grabbing with fraudulent intention.  It is important to note that the accused persons have also submitted various forged and fabricated documents which were subjected in the charge sheet filed by the CBCID and patta which has been cancelled as early as 11.02.1991, thereby using false documents as genuine with the intention of not only defrauding and cheating the complainant but also various governmental agencies.  It is important to note that the accused persons have even gone to the extent of forging signatures of one dead person G.L.Ahmed in the application and several other documents, which are annexed herewith.  It is pertinent to note that A.R.Sridharan who is a Village Administrative Officer, has remitted several fees and charges for planning permission to the CMDA and other departments, which runs to more than one Crore rupees, which is disproportionate to his known sources of income.  Despite several actions taken by the government as against A.R.Sridharan and other accused, the accused persons continue to indulge in further criminal activities by creating various forged and fabricated documents and thereby cheating all the government departments with malafide intention to grab the lands belonging to the company.  It is pertinent to note that the accused persons have not only created false documents with regard to the company's property, but has also grabbed lands belonging to several other persons in the public.  I have also enclosed several forged and fabricated documents submitted to the CMDA by the accused persons.  Kindly take immediate and prompt action and kindly grant police protection to my property."3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to impress upon this Court that the petitioner rightfully is entitled to the property which was dealt with.  The lower Courts had decided issues in respect of a property in his favour and that the de facto complainant had filed an appeal in S.A.Nos.2007 and 2008 of 2004.  This Court while passing orders in C.M.P.Nos.17148 and 17149 of 2004 has observed as follows:"5.However, this Court has to bear in mind the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that before the disposal of the second appeals, if the respondents are allowed to exploit the property by developing it and convey it to various individuals, several complications would follow.  Accordingly, I am inclined to give this direction to the respondents."As and when the property forming the subject matter of the suit, if developed and if conveyances are executed, the respondents would incorporate  a covenant in the said sale deed/deeds that the sale/purchase to the prospective buyer/buyers would be subject to the final orders in the second appeals pending on the file of this Court.  It is also made clear that in the event of any failure to do so by the respondents, would result in the entire transaction avoided by this Court.""4.Relying on the above, learned counsel would state that there was nothing wrong in the petitioner having moved the CMDA towards obtaining requisite permission.  Learned counsel would inform this Court that the communication of the de facto complainant dated 06.06.1997 to the Minister of Revenue, Government of Tamil Nadu suppressed the communication dated 02.11.1995 addressed by the Sub Collector, Saidapet, which clearly informed the de facto complainant that he was claiming lands in Adambakkam village after having purchased loans in St.Thomas Mount village and further that the extracts produced by the de facto complainant do not correlate with the properties held by the petitioner.5.Learned counsel contends that it is pertinent to point out that the  of the grievance of the 2nd respondent de facto complainant is that, in the 1st extract of Settlement Land Register issued by Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1979, dealt with Survey No.20/1 co-related to Pymash No.717, 718, 721, 722, 723/3 & 724 which includes the Survey Nos. of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent M/s.VAK Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., and others.  During the year 1979, the petitioner was the Triune Officer (Village Headman) and had under no stretch of imagination had anything to do with the land documents of the Assistant Settlement Officer at Chengulpet.  Learned counsel submits that the 2nd extract of Settlement Land Register issued by Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1984 which comprises lands in Pymash No.717, 718, 721, 722, 723/3 & 724 was filed by the 2nd respondent M/s.VAK Engineering Pvt. Ltd., in O.S.No.170 of 1984 and the same was obtained by the petitioner by filing copy application for grant of certified copy before the District Munsif Court at Alandur.  The same was filed in the combined suits in O.S.No.1635 of 1997, O.S.1714 of 1997 & O.S.1826 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Alandur.  Learned counsel submits that the 3rd extract of Settlement Land Register issued by Assistant Settlement Officer during the year 1994, was fabricated and created by the 2nd respondent after deleting the Pymash Nos. 723/3 and 724 for his convenience and made to appear as if it contained the Pymash Nos.717, 718, 721 and 722 co-related to Survey No.20/1 alone of his own property.  The respondent filed the above false, fabricated and forged extract in O.S.No.1635 of 1997.6.He would also place strong reliance on the findings of this Court in W.P.No.7890 of 2007 whereunder under orders dated 01.12.2009, this Court while dealing with the writ petition of the petitioner had ordered as follows:"17.The reasons why we are unable to accept the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 16.06.1988 are,a)that he could not have assumed himself the jurisdiction underSection 13of the Act 30 of 1963 without giving a finding that there were buildings on the property and the buildings existed on the appointed date.  There is no inherent power to exercise his jurisdiction in this regard, which he has done in the instant case.  The existence of buildings in the property on the appointed date is sine qua non for grant of patta;b)that two serious objections were raised by the Inamdar.  One was that they had not granted directly or by any authorised person any permission to the petitioner or his predecessors in interest to be in possession of the property; and the buildings on the property had come after the appointed date.  The Assistant Settlement Officer ought to have met these objections and dealt with them instead of brushing them aside as general objections;c)the Assistant Settlement Officer ought to have prepared a fair sketch showing individual possessions and correlated them with reference to the documents filed with the physical possession on ground.18.Therefore, we are not able to accept any of the objections raised by the petitioner against the orders setting aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order.  In fact, the Assistant Settlement Officer's order was rightly set aside.  But, as regards remanding the matter, while we really do not think that there was any mistake on the part of the first respondent in remitting the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer, considering the prolonged litigation, we felt that the matter could be decided by the Settlement Officer himself.  But, while remanding it to the Settlement Officer, we give him the following directions:-(1)He shall issue notice to the petitioner, to the respondent, to the Inamdar, to V.A.K. Engineering and to other persons, who are in occupation of the relevant survey numbers;(2)To localise the property, he may give directions to Assistant Settlement Officer to do the inspection and furnish the report and the Assistant Settlement Officer while conducting the inspection shall do so in the presence of all parties;(3)The Settlement Officer shall independently verify whether the allegations that there are alterations in the relevant records are true.  The observations in the impugned order shall not weigh with him.  While he may not have the jurisdiction to fix the guilt on any one, while granting patta on the basis of records, definitely he should satisfy himself whether the allegation made regarding fabrication or falsification is correct or not.  The parties are entitled to produce whatever documents that are there to support their case."7.Thus, in sum and substance, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only upon determination of civil rights and upon finding that the properties do belong to the de facto complainant, that criminal complaint could follow.8.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of the earlier portions of the present complaint would reflect verbatim reproduction of that which led to filing of FIR and registration of case in Crime No.4 of 1998 and hence, would place reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court inT.T.Antony v. State of Kerala and others(2001) 6 SCC 181, which in effect holds that there cannot be two FIRs in respect of one and the same occurrence, this Court is unable to accept such contention.  This court finds that the earlier portion of the FIR is a narration of what had transpired at an earlier point of time.  When the complaint in Crime No.4 of 1998 came to be registered, the occurrence which is spoken of in the present complaint had not so much as taken place.  Reference to the details spelt out in the earlier complaint is seen as only providing the background of the case and circumstances wherefrom the present offences stand committed.10.Learned counsel would also impress upon this Court that the complaint in the present case has been filed after a period of 6 years and the inordinate delay of filing the same would establish the malafides of the de facto complainant particularly given the rival claims between the parties.  Learned counsel would rely upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in  State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, wherein it is held as follows:"(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."Such malafides would further stand established by the fact that an offence underSection 420IPC has been registered only towards making out a cognizable offence and since the other offences alleged against the petitioner are non-cognizable.11.This Court is unable to accept the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner.  Towards quashing investigation in a case at its very inception, this Court would have to be satisfied that a reading of the complaint and the materials submitted therewith would in no event reflect the commission of offences.  Though it is true that there are rival claims to the properties between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, this by itself or taken together with the alleged delay in filing the complaint, cannot be read as reason enough to suspect malafides.  In the instant case, this Court finds that on the face of it, the complaint would reflect commission of offences.  Several documents have been filed by the de facto complainant in support of his plea.  It is not for us to enter upon the merits of the claims of either side or to draw therefrom and infer that offences do or do not stand committed.  Such is an exercise which is reserved for the investigating agency.12.In view of the above reasoning, the Criminal Original Petition fails.  Accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed.  Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.gm

To1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID Headquarters,
   Guindy, Chennai  32. CBCID (X) Cr.No.64/20092.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, 
  Chennai