Mr.A.R.Sridharan v. State, rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Headquarters, Chennai 600002

COMMON ORDERM.SATHYANARAYANAN, JThe present Original Petition is filed seeking to quashthe proceedings in C.C.No.321 of 2002 pending on the file of theCourt of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee on the basis of thecomplaint given by the District Collector, Kancheepuram. In thefinal report, three persons were arrayed as accused and the firstaccused is Thiru.A.R.Sridharan, who is the petitioner in thisCriminal Original Petition. 2. As per the final report, the accused are charged for thealleged commission of the offences under Section 120-B r/w 465,466, 467, 471, 167, 420 r/w 109 IPC. The final report was takenon file in C.C.No.321 of 2002 by the Court of Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Poonamallee. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this Criminal OriginalPetition are as follows:-M/s. V.A.K Engineering Private Limited, Alandur had sent arepresentation to the then Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, by means of petition alleging that the petitionerherein while he was working as the Village Administrative Officer,Adambakkam Village, has committed many malpractices and thereby,indulged in fabrication of records. It is alleged in the petitionthat M/s. V.A.K Engineering are the owners of the property inPaimash Nos.716, 717, 718, 721/3, l722/2, 859 and 860 correspondingto Town Survey Nos. 105, 121, 122, 138 of Adambakkam Village. Thetotal extent of land covered in the above said Paimash Numbers are11.42 Acres out of which, factory is located on 2.72 Acres of land.The balance area of 8.70 Acres are not covered by the boundary.The petitioner herein who is arrayed as the first accused in theabove said case, had tried to grab 3.80 acres of vacant land bymanipulating and fabricating Government Revenue records to show asif that he is in possession and enjoyment of the lands in TownSurvey No.138, Adambakkam Village. 4. The Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, Government of TamilNadu, has made an endorsement to the Collector of KancheepuramDistrict to look into the matter for necessary action. In pursuantto the said endorsement, the Collector of Kancheepuram District hasdirected the Personal Assistant (LA) to Collector, who is in therank of Deputy Collector/RDO, to conduct an enquiry. 5. The said official had conducted enquiry and came to theconclusion that the petitioner/first accused had successfullyinserted his father's name in R.S.No.20, T.S.No.138 in the Surveyand Land registers maintained in the Office of the AssistantSettlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai and Municipal Office, Alandurwith the collusion of Survey field staff and got patta byfraudulent means from the Assistant Settlement Officer,Thiruvannamalai. The said report runs to 23 pages and ultimately https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the above said official has also apart from suggesting remedialmeasures, recommended that criminal action may be initiated againstthe petitioner herein for fabrication of Government RevenueRecords, cheating the Government and the Judicial forums. 6. A report was submitted to the Collector of KancheepuramDistrict who forwarded the same to the Government which in turn,directed the CBCID to probe into it. The CBCID has registered acase in Crime No.4/1998 for the alleged commission of the offencesunder Section 466, 467, 468, 471 of IPC on 22.12.1998 on the basisof the complaint given by the Collector of Kancheepuram District.The CBCID after investigation, has filed a final report which hasbeen taken on file in C.C.No.321 of 2002 by the Court of JudicialMagistrate No.II, Poonamallee. 7. The grounds raised in this Criminal Original Petition arethat the lands comprised in T.S.No.138, 132 etc., in AdambakkamVillage were originally Inam lands and they fall within the scopeof the provisions of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963).The Assistant Settlement Officer who has been vested with power toenquire and grant pattas to the claimants in terms of the abovesaid Act, had made enquiry and granted patta to the petitioner. 8. In respect of the above said properties, civil proceedingswere initiated by M/s. Associated Trading Company and thepetitioner has succeeded before the lower Courts and the HighCourt. SLP preferred by M/s. Associated Trading Company Ltd.,before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also ended indismissal. 9. M/s. Associated Trading Company has also filed a privatecomplaint on similar lines as that of the present complaint and ithas been quashed by this Court and the Supreme Court has alsoconfirmed the same. 10. It is further contended by the petitioner that thecognizance of the case by CBCID based on the enquiry reportsubmitted by the Personal Assistant (LA) to the Collector ofKancheepuram District is clearly barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i)of Cr.P.C. In so far as V.A.K Engineering Company is concerned, itlost the civil proceedings against this petitioner and SecondAppeals are pending adjudication before this Court. 11. The petitioner further contended that he is the owner ofthe property admeasuring to an extent of 3.80 Acres in Paimash Nos.723/3 and 724 corresponding to T.S.No.138 Ward-E, Block-I in SurveyNo.20/1, Adambakkam Village and his title and possession has beenupheld by the civil Court. It is further stated by the petitionerthat M/s.V.A.K Engineering Company has filed a suit for declarationof its title and for consequential relief in O.S.No.1714 of 1997 onthe file of the Court of District Munsif, Alandur which has beensubsequently transferred to the file of the Court of DistrictMunsif, Tambaram and the same is pending adjudication. The present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Criminal case is filed in order to wreck vengeance against him andit is purely an abuse of process of law.12. On 23.11.2009, the petitioner herein raised additionalgrounds contending among other things that the allegations made inthe FIR/Complaint even if they are taken on their face value andaccepted in their entirety, prima facie do not constitutecommission of any offence or make out a case against thepetitioner/accused. 13. As the allegations in the FIR do not constitutecognizable offence, no investigation is permissible without anorder of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ofCr.P.C. It is further stated in the additional grounds that thepresent criminal proceedings is per se mala fide solely with theobject of wrecking vengeance.14. The Respondent viz., the State, has filed a counterstating that M/s. V.A.K Engineering Company has submitted apetition dated 6.6.1997 to the Government of Tamil Nadu allegingabout the manipulation and fabrication of Government RevenueRecords and they made serious allegations against the petitioner.The petition was forwarded to the District Collector, Kancheepuram,who in turn, ordered his Personal Assistant in the rank of DeputyCollector to enquire into the allegations levelled against thepetitioner. The enquiry officer after thoroughly perusing thevarious records at the concerned offices, has given a reportstating that the petitioner herein had manipulated and fabricatedGovernment Records and produced the same, before various civil andRevenue forums and managed to get favourable orders in his favour.15. The said report was submitted to the then Collector ofKancheepuram District viz., Thiru.V.Irai Anbu, IAS, who in turnpreferred a complaint to the Additional Director General of Police,CBCID, Chennai. The ADGP, CBCID in turn directed its, ChengalpattuEast Unit and accordingly, registered a case in Crime No.4/1998against the petitioner and two others for the alleged commission ofthe offence under Section 466, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Theinvestigation conducted by CBCID, Chengalpattu East Unit revealedthat: (i)VAO Sridharan (Petitioner/Accused) fabricatedan extract of Survey Land Register by includinghis father's name "Rajagopala Pillai" amongother entries against Resurvey No.20/1 of WardE, Block I of Adambakkam and filed before theCivil Courts to claim 3.80 acres of land.Handwriting experts opinion confirmed that it isthe writing of the petitioner/accused Sridharanwho wrote the entries including Rajagopal Pillaiwhich is not found place in the original SurveyLand Register.(ii)Survey Land Register is a permanent recordwhich shows the name of the owner of a land in aparticular Resurvey Number as noted in Revenue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Records and in Survey department records,besides various other details. This registerhas been forged as paimash No.723/3 and 724 havebeen inserted against Resurvey No.20/1 andsubsequently stroked off.(iii)Correlation Register which shows how thepaimash numbers have been correlated to ResurveyNumbers are also forged to facilitate,petitioner/accused to fraudulently claim 3.80acres of lands in Resurvey No.20/1 (Town SurveyNo.138)(iv) VAO A.R.Sridharan (Petitioner/Accused) hadhis father's name entered against ResurveyNo.20/1 (Town Survey No.138) in the Adangal ofAdambakkam Village when he was the VAO of thesaid village. The Adangals of AdambakkamVillage, which were maintained by other VAOsshow that the lands covered in Resurvey No.20/1(Town Survey No.138) are vacant lands. Itclearly proved that VAO A.R.Sridharan enteredhis father's name in the village accounts tofraudulently establish his claim on landcovered in paimash No.723/3 and 724 as incorrelated to Resurvey No.20/1 (Town SurveyNo.138) and as being his family's possessionsince his father's time.(v)VAO A.R.Sridharan (Petitioner/Accused) has alsoinserted his father's name in the Adangal ofAdambakkam Village at a time when he was not theVAO of Adambakkam Village. The forgerycommitted by VAO A.R.Sridharan(Petitioner/Accused) clearly establishes that heentered his father's name in the villageaccounts to establish his claim on lands toResurvey No.20/1 (Town Survey No.138) and asbeing his family's time. (vi)VAO A.R.Sridharan (Petitioner/Accused) hasalso entered his associates name G.L.Ahamed andBhuvannammal, W/o L.Ammer in the Adangal inrespect of lands (in Ward E, Block I) ofAdambakkam Village, Resurvey No.20/1 (TownSurvey No.122) to facilitate the accusedG.L.Ahamed and Bhuvannammal to enable them toproduce the same before the various authoritiesto fraudulently claim the said lands."16. The original charge sheet was filed on 14.6.2002 andafter obtaining permission to conduct further investigation, thecase was further investigated and a composite charge sheet wasfiled on 14.10.2005 which has been taken on file in C.C.No.321 of2002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. It is further contended in the counter that theapplicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. no longer survivessince the composite charge sheet has been filed. 18. M/s. V.A.K. Engineering Company has filed an interveningpetition contending that the petitioner herein with the connivanceof other accused, has committed various offences such as forgingand fabrication of Government Revenue Records and managed to obtainpatta through the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer,Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner has inserted his father's name inthe Fair Land Register of Adambakkam Village by misusing hisofficial position as Village Administrative Officer of the samevillage.19. It is further stated that the petitioner is per se guiltyof cheating land grabbing, fraud and forgery and based on itscomplaint to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue which was forwardedto the Collector of Kancheepuram District, further action wastaken. It is further stated that since the allegations of malafide and wrecking out vengeance had been made against M/s. V.A.K.Engineering Company, it is entitled to intervene in this CriminalOriginal Petition and is having to oppose this petition. 20. Heard the submissions of Mr.Xavier Felix, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor and Mr.Habibullah Badsha, learnedsenior counsel for Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned counselappearing for the intervenor viz., M/s.VAK Engineering PrivateLimited, Alandur, Chennai. 21. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that M/s.VAKEngineering Company Private Limited has filed W.P.No.6197 of 1995fora direction to the Commissioner of police Chennai City andInspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount to take action on thecomplaint lodged by them and to render police aid for protection oftheir property admeasuring 8.75 Acres of land in T.S.No.121, 122and 138 in Ward E Block I Alandur Municipality and this Court afterhearing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner andRespondents, has held that the petitioner therein i.e. M/s VAKEngineering Private Limited is entitled to make complaint to theInspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount in case of any new trespass ismade by the third parties and on such complaint the secondRespondent is directed to take suitable action in accordance withlaw. It was also clarified that the orders passed in the writpetition will not affect the rights of the said parties under thecivil proceedings. 22. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that by suppressing, it M/s.VAK Engineering PrivateLimited has given a petition to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue,Government of Tamil Nadu who in turn, forwarded the same to theCollector of Kancheepuram District for further action and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Collector of Kancheepuram District after getting report of his P.A.( In the rank of Deputy Collector), has lodged a complaint to theCBCID.23. The said procedure according to the learned counselappearing for the petitioner is in gross violation of businessRules of Government of Tamil Nadu which has been framed underArticle 166 of the Constitution of India and also SecretariatManual. 24. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner that the District Collector, Kancheepuram oughtnot to have ordered discreet enquiry without placing the matter forreference such as scope of enquiry areas and officers to be visitedofficer conducting the enquiry. 25. The vires of the discreet enquiry conducted by the P.A.to the District Collector is also challenged stating that the saidreport is concocted, baseless and mala fide only to satisfy therequest of M/s.VAK Engineering Company. 26. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner that the Collector of Kancheepuram ought not to haveinitiated further action on the basis of the discreet enquiryreport submitted by his P.A. and he cannot be deemed to be thecomplainant or informant in terms of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. Itis further submitted that the complaint in any event is purely anabuse of process of law as the earlier private complaint given byM/s. Associated Trading Company on the same lines has been quashedby this Court which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India also. Since there is an illegality in the commencementof investigation, it cannot be cured under Section 465 of Cr.P.C.and the matter which is purely a civil in nature, is given thecolour of criminality at the instance of M/s. VAK EngineeringPrivate Limited with the sole aim of harassing the petitioner sothat he can tow the lines of the said company. 27. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorwould submit that originally FIR registered in Crime No.4/1998 byCBCID, Chengalpattu East Crime was the subject matter of thechallenge in Criminal O.P. 11431 of 2002 and the same wasdismissed. Thereafter, after the case was taken on file inC.C.No.321of 2002 the petitioner filed an application under Section239 of Cr.P.C. praying for discharge and the same was dismissed bythe Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee on 14.10.2004.The petitioner herein aggrieved by the dismissal of the same, haspreferred a Revision in Crl.R.P.No.112 of 2005 before the Court ofPrincipal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and the same was alsodismissed on 25.4.2006. Therefore, the present O.P. filed by thepetitioner amounts to second revision which is clearly barred underSection 397(3) of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Additional Public Prosecutor that the points raised by thepetitioner in this Criminal O.P. relatable to the appreciation ofmaterials collected during the investigation and the same cannot bechallenged by filing this Criminal Original Petition. The meritsand otherwise of the materials collected during investigation canbe put into issue only during the course of trial. 28. It is also the submission of the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor that mala fide on the part of the investigatingagency cannot be raised now as the quashment of FIR on the groundof mala fide, has been rejected by this Court vide order dated21.6.2002 in Crl.O.P.No.11431 of 2002.29. It is the further submission of the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor that the present Criminal Original Petition ispurely an abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed for itsdismissal. 30. The learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenorwould submit that the present Criminal Original Petition amounts tosecond revision and therefore it is liable to be dismissedinlimine. It is the further submission of the learned seniorcounsel appearing for the intervenor that the petitioner herein hasabused and misused his position such as Village AdministrativeOfficer of Adambakkam Village and forged and fabricated the recordsso as to enable him to claim title and possession to the lands inquestion and truth or otherwise of the materials collected duringinvestigation, can be thrashed out only during the course of trialand prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition. 31. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by wayof reply would submit that the petition for discharge pertain tothe charge sheet which was originally filed on 14.6.2002 andthereafter, after obtaining leave of the Court to conduct furtherinvestigation, the matter was investigated further by theprosecuting agency and they laid composite charge sheet on14.10.2005, which is the subject matter of challenge in thisCriminal Original Petition. Therefore, it is the submission of thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the presentCriminal Original Petition will not amount to second revision andit is maintainable. 32. This Court carefully considered the submissions made bythe learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 33. The point for consideration is:- Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.321 of 2002pending on the file of the Court of JudicialMagistrate No.II, Poonamallee are liable to bequashed as against the petitioner/A1.? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

34. The intervenor viz., M/s. VAK Engineering Company hassubmitted a petition to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue,Government of Tamil Nadu on 6.6.1997. The then Hon'ble Ministerfor Revenue has made the following endorsement on the saidpetition:" Collector for Anna District"" may be examined and necessary action".The then Collector of Kancheepuram District viz., Mr.Rajamanickam,IAS, has directed his Personal Assistant (Local Administration),who is in the rank of Deputy Collector, to conduct enquiry andsubmit a report. Thereafter, the said official has conducted adetailed enquiry and submitted a report on 11.7.1997 stating thatthe petitioner herein has committed serious acts of fraud byfabricating and forging Government Revenue records. 35. Mr.Rajamanickam, IAS was succeeded by Mr.V.Irai Anbu,IAS, as Collector of Kancheepuram District and after perusing thesaid enquiry report, he referred the matter to the Department ofVigilance and Anti-corruption. He was also directed by theGovernment during December 1997, to prefer a complaint andaccordingly he has preferred a complaint to ADGP, CBCID, Chennaifor necessary criminal action against the petitioner. The ADGP,CBCID, directed the Chengalpattu East Unit, of CBCID to registera case against the petitioner. Hence, a case in Crime No.4/1998was registered against the petitioner and two others. 36. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner that without following the Government business Rules,the complaint lodged by Mr.V.Irai Anbu, IAS, Collector ofKancheepuram District is per se unsustainable, in the opinion ofthe Court lacks substance and merits. According to prosecution,serious acts of fraud and manipulation of Government RevenueRecords had been committed by the petitioner and two others and thepetitioner using his official position as the VillageAdministrative Officer of the Adambakkam Village had fabricated andmanipulated the records to claim ownership of the lands admeasuring3.80 Acres in the above said paimash/survey numbers at AdambakkamVillage. It is not as if based on the endorsement made by theHon'ble Minister for Revenue in the petition submitted by theintervenor, case has been straight away registered. In fact, thethen Collector of Kancheepuram District Mr.Rajamanickam, IAS, hasdirected his P.A. who is in the rank of Deputy Collector to conductan enquiry and the said official has submitted his reportrecommending penal action and also other measures. By that timeMr.Rajamanickam, IAS, got transferred and Mr.V.Irai Anbu, IAS, tookcharge of the Collector of Kancheepuram District, who after gettingadvice of the Government, has lodged a complaint to ADGP, CBCID,who in turn directed the local wing to register a case. 37. It is a settled position of law that anybody can set thecriminal law in motion. In respect of the case on hand serious https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and twoothers for fabrication and manipulation of Government RevenueRecords and therefore, the Collector of Kancheepuram District hasgot the locus standi to lodge and maintain a complaint. 38. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that theGovernment Business Rules and Guidelines pertaining to officeadministration have not been followed while ordering the discreetenquiry, cannot be sustained as whether the said Rules orGuidelines have been followed or not, can be elicited only at thetime of the examination of the concerned witnesses. The above saidRules or Guidelines are silent with regard to the non-complianceand its effect on the investigation done by CBCID. In any event,it is the subject matter of trial and this Court is not expressingany opinion on that aspect. 39. As regards the submission made on behalf of thepetitioner that some complaint of similar line preferred by theAssociated Trading Company was quashed by this Court which wasconfirmed by the Apex Court and therefore the present complaintamounts to double jeopardy, this Court is of the view that thepresent proceedings has nothing to do with the private complaintlodged by Associated Trading Company. The prosecution has beenlaunched by CBCID based on the complaint given by the Collector,Kancheepuram District, which pertains to fabrication andmanipulation of Government Revenue Records said to have done by thepetitioner and others and investigating agency after a detailedinvestigation, has laid a final report which has been taken on fileand it is entirely a different proceedings. Therefore, thequashing of the private complaint filed by M/s. Associated TradingCompany has nothing to do with the charge sheet which has beentaken on file in C.C.No.321 of 2002 by the Court of JudicialMagistrate No.II, at Poonamallee. 40. The contention raised by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner that as regards the title of the petitionerpertaining to the lands in question, civil proceedings has reachedfinality, lacks merit as second appeals filed by M/s.VAKEngineering Company are pending adjudication before this Court andthe suit filed by them for declaration of their title is alsopending adjudication. It is the specific case of the intervenorthat by using the fabricated Revenue Records, the petitioner hereinmanaged to get verdicts in his favour. Whether the documents arefabricated or forged and whether the said documents have been usedby the petitioner to get a favourable verdict in his favour cannotbe decided in this Criminal Original Petition as the said issuesare subject matter of adjudication pending before the competentjudicial/Revenue forums. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

41. With regard to the submission of the learned counselappearing for the petitioner that the present proceedings are malafide and abuse of process of this Court, the petitioner filedCriminal O.P.No.4395 of 2000 on the file of this Court, challengingthe FIR of Crime No.4/1998 registered by CBCID and the same wasdismissed by this Court on 8.3.2009. 42. With regard to the maintainability of this OriginalPetition, this Court holds that an application for discharge wasfiled in pursuant to the charge sheet dated 14.6.2002 and the samewas dismissed and the Revision Petition was also dismissed by thelower Court. The investigating agency after obtaining permissionof the Court under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. further investigatedthe case and filed composite charge sheet on 14.10.2005 which hasbeen taken on file in C.C.No.321 of 2002, and the same is thesubject matter of challenge in this Criminal Original Petition.Even assuming that the present Original Petition is a secondrevision, it cannot be said that it is totally barred. However,the subject matter of challenge in this Criminal Original Petitionis the composite charge sheet which has been taken on file on14.10.2005 and therefore, this Court is of the view that thepresent Original Petition does not amount to second Revision andtherefore, it is maintainable. 43. Let us consider the decisions cited by the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor.44. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Bajan Lal and others -1992 SCC Cri. page 426, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India hasconsidered the question of quashing of the FIR and issuedguidelines wherein power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C.should be exercised: "(1)Where the allegations made in thefirst information report or the complaint, evenif they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facieconstitute any offence or make out a caseagainst the accused.(2)Where the allegations in the firstinformation report and other materials, if any,accompanying the FIR do not disclose acognizable offence, justifying an investigationby police officers under Section 156(1) of theCode except under an order of a Magistratewithin the purview of Section 155(2) of theCode.(3)Where the uncontroverted allegationsmade in the FIR or complaint and the evidencecollected in support of the same do notdisclose the commission of any offence and makeout a case against the accused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR donot constitute a cognizable offence butconstitute only a non-cognizable offence, noinvestigation is permitted by a police officerwithout an order of a Magistrate ascontemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.(5)Where the allegations made in the FIRor complaint are so absurd and inherentlyimprobable on the basis of which no prudentperson can ever reach a just conclusion thatthere is sufficient ground for proceedingagainst the accused.(6)Where there is an express legal barengrafted in any of the provisions of the Codeor the concerned Act (under which a criminalproceeding is instituted) to the institutionand continuance of the proceedings and/or wherethere is a specific provision in the Code orthe concerned Act, providing efficaciousredress for the grievance of the aggrievedparty.(7) Where a criminal proceeding ismanifestly attended with mala fide and/or wherethe proceeding is maliciously instituted withan ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance onthe accused and with a view to spite him due toprivate and personal grudge".45. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldsubmit that Clause 7 of the above said guidelines is applicable tothe facts of this case as the complaint and the subsequentinvestigation is initiated by mala fide. In the said judgment, thequestion of mala fide was also considered and it has been held thatthe question of mala fide exercise of power will assumesignificance only if an authority acts for unauthorised purpose andthe proper test to be applied in such a case is as to what is thedominant purpose for which the power is exercised. 46. In the judgment reported in 2008 (8) SCC page 781 -Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P. , the quashment of criminalproceedings on the ground of mala fide came up for considerationand it has been held as follows:-"In fact, the question of mala fides in acase like the present is not at all relevant.If the complaint which is made is correct andoffence has been committed which will have tobe established in a court of law, it is of nosignificance that the complainant is a personwho is inimical or that he is guilty of malafides. If the ingredients which establish thecommission of the offence or misconduct exist, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ then the prosecution cannot fail merely becausethere was an animus of the complainant or theprosecution against the accused. Allegations ofmala fides may be relevant while judging thecorrectness of the allegations or whileexamining the evidence. But the mere fact thatthe complainant is guilty of mala fides, wouldbe no ground for quashing the proceedings.There may be some exceptions to the said rule".47. Applying the ratio laid down in the said decision, thisCourt is of the view that on the allegation of mala fide, thecharge sheet cannot be quashed, as it is a matter for trial whereinthe correctness of the allegations including the ground of malafide can be considered during the course of trial. Therefore, wefind no force in the submissions made by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner. 48. In (1994) 4 SCC page 142 - Minakshi Bala vs.l SudhirKulmar and others, an application was filed under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. for quashing the charges framed against the accused and itwas dismissed and challenging the legality of the same, appealswere preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In thesaid decision it has been held as follows:- "If charges are framed in accordance withSection 240 CrPC on a finding that a primafacie case has been made out — as has been donein the instant case — the person arraigned may,if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisionaljurisdiction of the High Court or the SessionsJudge to contend that the charge-sheetsubmitted under Section 173 CrPC and documentssent with it did not disclose any ground topresume that he had committed any offence forwhich he is charged and the revisional court ifso satisfied can quash the charges framedagainst him. To put it differently, oncecharges are framed under Section 240 CrPC theHigh Court in its revisional jurisdiction wouldnot be justified in relying upon documentsother than those referred to in Sections 239and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified ininvoking its inherent jurisdiction underSection 482 CrPC to quash the same except inthose rare cases where forensic exigencies andformidable compulsions justify such a course.We hasten to add even in such exceptional casesthe High Court can look into only thosedocuments which are unimpeachable and can belegally translated into relevant evidence". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

49. The attention of this Court was invited to the contentsof the charge sheet and this Court has also perused the same andalso the list of witnesses who are to give evidence to support thesaid contents. On a thorough consideration of the same, we are ofthe opinion that the points urged on behalf of the petitioner canbe thrashed out, only during the course of trial. 50. It is also a settled position of law that if this Courtin exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., would notordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in questionis reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it,accusation would not be sustained as it is the function of thetrial Court. The Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section482, should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretionand should take all relevant facts and circumstances intoconsideration before issuing the process. No doubt, this Court hasto find out whether the process is abuse to unleash vendetta toharass any person needlessly but at the same time, this provisionis not an instrument handed over to the accused to short-circuit aprosecution and bring about its sudden death. 51. The learned counsel for the petitioner stress upon thisCourt to consider civil proceedings between parties and submitsthat the decision rendered in the civil proceedings hadconclusively established rights of the petitioner and therefore,under the guise of Criminal prosecution, the petitioner is beingharassed. 52. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that M/s. VAKEngineering Private Limited has submitted a petition to the Hon'bleMinister for Revenue, Government of Tamil Nadu, who made anendorsement requiring the Collector of Kancheepuram District fortaking necessary action. The Collector of Kancheepuram District inturn directed his Personal Assistant who is in the rank of DeputyCollector, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The saidofficial has conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a reportstating about the fabrication of Government Records and alsorecommended certain action against the petitioner herein.Mr.V.Irai Anbu, IAS, who succeeded Mr.Rajamanickam, IAS, as theCollector of Kancheepuram District has also written to theGovernment with regard to the further action and on the instructionof the Government, a complaint was lodged to ADGP, CBCID, who inturn directed the local CBCID Unit to register a case andinvestigate the matter. After investigation, a charge sheet wasfiled which has been taken on file in C.C.No.321 of 2002 on thefile of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee and atthis juncture the present O.P. is filed. 53. Even though, our attention was drawn to the some of thedocuments which do not form part of the final report documents, wehave not looked into the same. The assessment of evidence whileinvoking the provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. came up forconsideration in 2008(8) SCC page 781-Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of U.P. (cited supra) and it has been held as follows:- The inherent power should not be exercised tostifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Courtbeing the highest court of a State shouldnormally refrain from giving a prima faciedecision in a case where the entire facts areincomplete and hazy, more so when the evidencehas not been collected and produced before theCourt and the issues involved, whether factualor legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seenin their true perspective without sufficientmaterial. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule canbe laid down in regard to cases in which theHigh Court will exercise its jurisdiction ofquashing the proceeding at any stage. When thecomplaint is sought to be quashed it ispermissible to look into the materials toassess what the complainant has alleged andwhether any offence is made out even if theallegations are accepted in toto. Indisputably,there is no quarrel with the well-settledprinciples of law that while exercising powersunder Section 482 CrPC, the High Court does notfunction as a court of appeal or revision. Itis to be exercised ex debito justitiae to doreal and substantial justice for theadministration of which courts exist".The petitioner is always at liberty to produce the documents whichsupports his defence at the time of trial and invite the attentionof concerned witnesses to the said documents and elicit answers.As held in the above cited decision, this Court while exercisingjurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC., does not function as aCourt of appeal or revision. Therefore, we are not inclined tolook into those documents which have not formed part of the finalreport. 54. In (2000) 2 SCC 57 -State of M.P. vs. S.B.Johari andothers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated thepractice of appreciating the material produced by the prosecutionat the stage of framing of the charges. The same analogy appliesto the documents produced by the accused also. Therefore, thisCourt is not inclined to look into the documents relied on by theprosecution as well as by the accused except for a limited purposewith regard to the prima facie case. On consideration of thesubmissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor, we are not inclined to hold that theprosecution is mala fide at this stage as it is the subject matterof trial. 55. As regards the submission made by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, that procedure contemplated underOffice Manual and Administrative Instructions have not been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ violated by the District Collector of Kancheepuram District whilelodging the complaint, this Court already held in the earlierparagraphs that in the absence of the consequences with regard tonon-following of the procedure, it cannot be held that the saidfabrication is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Thus, thesaid issue and also it can be raised during the trial at anappropriate stage and it cannot be a reason to quash the chargesheet. 56. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laysmuch stress on the locus standi of the Collector of KancheepuramDistrict viz., Thiru.V.Irai Anbu, IAS, to lodge the complaint. Weare afraid the said submission lacks merit and substance. Theallegations pertain to tampering of Government Revenue Records andother documents and according to the investigating agency, thepetitioner who was the Village Administrative Officer of AdambakkamVillage had fabricated and manipulated the records and used thesame in civil and Revenue proceedings and managed to claim titleand possession in respect of lands measuring 3.80 Acres. Theallegations appear to be very serious and the District Collectorbeing the Revenue Head, has surely got the locus standi to lodgethe complaint. It is not as if the said complaint was straightaway taken on file and in fact the Government has considered thesame and directed the District Collector to lodge the complaint toADGP, CBCID and accordingly the complaint was lodged. ADGP, CBCIDin turn directed the local unit to conduct investigation, and afterinvestigation the composite final report was filed which was takenon file. Therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure adoptedis illegal or unlawful. 57. The petitioner earlier filed Criminal O.P.No.11431 of2002 for quashing FIR and the same was dismissed and thereaftercharge sheet was filed on 14.6.2002 and discharge petition wasfiled before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court which wasdismissed. The petitioner herein challenging the vires of thesame, has filed a revision before the District Court and it wasalso dismissed. The investigating agency after obtainingpermission under Section 153 (8) of Cr.P.C., has done furtherinvestigation and lodged a composite charge sheet on 14.10.2005which is the subject matter of challenge in this Original Petition.Therefore, the petitioner at every stage has availed the remedy andin the process, the trial of the case could not proceed further. 58. This Court on a careful consideration and appreciation ofthe submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side andalso by applying the ratio laid down in the above cited decision,is prima facie of the view that the accusation made against thepetitioner is not without basis or substance. 59. The points urged by the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner are touching upon the merits of the case includingappreciation of documentary evidence and in the presentproceedings, it cannot be done. The said exercise can be done onlyin trial wherein the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner/A1 beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner is alsoat liberty to putforth his defence. 60. This Court finds no merit in this Criminal OriginalPetition and therefore, it is dismissed. 61. The findings/observations made herein are only for thedisposal of this Criminal Original Petition and the trial Courtneed not be influenced by such observations. It goes withoutsaying the trial Court is to decide the guilt on the part of thepetitioner/A1 based on the evidences available on record. 62. Since the Calendar Case is of the year 2002, the trialCourt is required to give priority for its early disposal and asfar as possible, on day to day basis. 63. Since direction has been given in Crl.O.P.No.12166 of2006, for expeditious disposal of C.C.No.321 of 2002, no ordersare necessary in this Criminal Original Petition and therefore, itis closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrargr.To1.Deputy Superintendentof Police, Crime Branch CID, Headquarters,Chennai 600002.2.The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee.3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, atChengalpattu.4.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 2 cc To Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Advocate, SR.67266.2 cc To Mr.Velayutham Pichaiya, Advocate, SR.67273.Crl.O.P.Nos.12166 of 2006 and 32450 of 2007CK(CO)RVL 15.12.2009