A.R.Shridharan v. State by Inspector of Police CBCID Headquarters, Guindy, Chennai – 32. CBCID (X) Cr.No.64/20092.Rajesh Malhotra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 30.08.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAMCrl.O.P.No.19526 of 2010andM.P.No.1 of 2010A.R.Shridharan..Petitioner/1st AccusedVs1.State by Inspector of Police CBCID Headquarters, Guindy, Chennai – 32. CBCID (X) Cr.No.64/20092.Rajesh Malhotra ..Respondents/ComplainantCriminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of CriminalProcedure Code to call for the entire proceedings in CBCID (X) CrimeNo.64 of 2009 pending on the file of the 1st respondent against thepetitioner and quash the same.For Petitioner:Mr.S.Xavier FelixFor Respondent 1:Mr.I.Paul Nobel DevakumarGA (Crl.Side)O R D E RThe petitioner seeks to quash the case pending investigation inCBCID (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 propertycomprised in T.S.No.105, 121, 122 and 138 to an extent of 11.44acres of land in Adambakkam village, Kancheepuram District.While so, one A.R.Sridharan S/o.A.P.Rajagopalan, the VAO ofAdambakkam village along with his brother A.R.Kannan, L.Ameers/o.Abdul Lathif, G.L.Ahmed (deceased), A.P.Rajagopalan(deceased) and R.Bhuvanammal (deceased) in pursuance of criminal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conspiracy, jointly attempted to grab the lands of the companyby manipulating Government records and by forging documentswhich were in the official custody of A.R.Sridharan for claimingtitle of land illegally in T.S.No.121, 122 and 138 of Adambakkamvillage, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District belonging to thecompany. The company gave a representation to the then Ministerfor Revenue stating the illegal activities of the above accusedpersons and based on the company's complaint, a comprehensiveenquiry was conducted as against the accused persons by anOfficer in the cadre of Deputy Collector and based on theenquiry report, the government after examining the recordsthrough Commissioner of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, came to aconclusion that A.R.Sridharan by misusing his official capacityin collusion with other accused has committed various offencesand thereafter Thiru Irai Anbu, IAS, the then Collector ofKancheepuram District preferred a complaint on behalf of theGovernment in R.C.1/97 dated 26.01.1998 to ADGP, CBCID, Chennaiand the same was taken on file by the CB-CID and charge sheetwas filed on 14.06.2002 under section 120(B) r/w. 465, 466,467, 471, 420, 167 and 109 of IPC. The 1st accusedA.R.Sridharan in conspiracy and connivance with other accusedhas committed various offences such as replacing forged paperafter tearing out the original paper of town survey landregister of Adambakkam village, illegally correlated PymashNo.723/3 and 724 to resurvey No.20/1 of Adambakkam village,inserted his father's name A.P.Rajagopalan against resurveynumber 28/1 in the Adangals of Adambakkam village which aremaintained by him obtained patta in favour of him by producingforged documents before the Asst.Settlement Officer,Thiruvannamalai, inserted his father's name A.P.Rajagopalan inthe Fair Land Register of Adambakkam village corresponding toT.S.No.121, 122 and 138 and has also committed such otheroffences by misusing his official capacity. The above chargesheet is taken cognizance in C.C.No.321/2002 on the file ofJudicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee and it is categoricallyestablished that various interpolations have been made by theaccused persons and further the same is confirmed by HandwritingExperts. Apart from being charge sheeted for the offences ofcheating, land grabbing, fraud and forgery, the accusedSridharan along with others have also been charge sheeted foroffences affecting public peace and public tranquility and alsoaffecting public order by indulging in unlawful assembly,rioting, possession of dangerous weapons, trespass and criminalintimidation for which charge sheet has been filed under section147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 7(1) (a) ofC.L.A. Act and the charge sheet is taken cognizance inC.C.No.176/2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II,Poonamallee. While the position being so, apart from thevarious offences committed by the accused persons, the companycame to know that the accused person, suppressing the charge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sheet against them, has conspired together with several otherpersons and submitted an application to the CMDA for obtainingPlanning permission with several new forged and fabricateddocuments for the purpose of land grabbing with fraudulentintention. It is important to note that the accused personshave also submitted various forged and fabricated documentswhich were subjected in the charge sheet filed by the CBCID andpatta which has been cancelled as early as 11.02.1991, therebyusing false documents as genuine with the intention of not onlydefrauding and cheating the complainant but also variousgovernmental agencies. It is important to note that the accusedpersons have even gone to the extent of forging signatures ofone dead person G.L.Ahmed in the application and several otherdocuments, which are annexed herewith. It is pertinent to notethat A.R.Sridharan who is a Village Administrative Officer, hasremitted several fees and charges for planning permission to theCMDA and other departments, which runs to more than one Crorerupees, which is disproportionate to his known sources ofincome. Despite several actions taken by the government asagainst A.R.Sridharan and other accused, the accused personscontinue to indulge in further criminal activities by creatingvarious forged and fabricated documents and thereby cheating allthe government departments with malafide intention to grab thelands belonging to the company. It is pertinent to note thatthe accused persons have not only created false documents withregard to the company's property, but has also grabbed landsbelonging to several other persons in the public. I have alsoenclosed several forged and fabricated documents submitted tothe CMDA by the accused persons. Kindly take immediate andprompt action and kindly grant police protection to myproperty." 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to impress uponthis Court that the petitioner rightfully is entitled to the propertywhich was dealt with. The lower Courts had decided issues in respectof a property in his favour and that the de facto complainant hadfiled an appeal in S.A.Nos.2007 and 2008 of 2004. This Court whilepassing orders in C.M.P.Nos.17148 and 17149 of 2004 has observed asfollows:"5.However, this Court has to bear in mind the submissionmade by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellantthat before the disposal of the second appeals, if therespondents are allowed to exploit the property by developing itand convey it to various individuals, several complicationswould follow. Accordingly, I am inclined to give this directionto the respondents."As and when the property forming the subject matter of thesuit, if developed and if conveyances are executed, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents would incorporate a covenant in the said saledeed/deeds that the sale/purchase to the prospectivebuyer/buyers would be subject to the final orders in the secondappeals pending on the file of this Court. It is also madeclear that in the event of any failure to do so by therespondents, would result in the entire transaction avoided bythis Court.""4.Relying on the above, learned counsel would state that therewas nothing wrong in the petitioner having moved the CMDA towardsobtaining requisite permission. Learned counsel would inform thisCourt that the communication of the de facto complainant dated06.06.1997 to the Minister of Revenue, Government of Tamil Nadusuppressed the communication dated 02.11.1995 addressed by the SubCollector, Saidapet, which clearly informed the de facto complainantthat he was claiming lands in Adambakkam village after havingpurchased loans in St.Thomas Mount village and further that theextracts produced by the de facto complainant do not correlate withthe properties held by the petitioner. 5.Learned counsel contends that it is pertinent to point outthat the of the grievance of the 2nd respondent de facto complainantis that, in the 1st extract of Settlement Land Register issued byAssistant Settlement Officer in the year 1979, dealt with SurveyNo.20/1 co-related to Pymash No.717, 718, 721, 722, 723/3 & 724 whichincludes the Survey Nos. of the petitioner as well as the 2ndrespondent M/s.VAK Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., and others. During theyear 1979, the petitioner was the Triune Officer (Village Headman)and had under no stretch of imagination had anything to do with theland documents of the Assistant Settlement Officer at Chengulpet.Learned counsel submits that the 2nd extract of Settlement LandRegister issued by Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1984which comprises lands in Pymash No.717, 718, 721, 722, 723/3 & 724was filed by the 2nd respondent M/s.VAK Engineering Pvt. Ltd., inO.S.No.170 of 1984 and the same was obtained by the petitioner byfiling copy application for grant of certified copy before theDistrict Munsif Court at Alandur. The same was filed in the combinedsuits in O.S.No.1635 of 1997, O.S.1714 of 1997 & O.S.1826 of 1997 onthe file of the District Munsif Court at Alandur. Learned counselsubmits that the 3rd extract of Settlement Land Register issued byAssistant Settlement Officer during the year 1994, was fabricated andcreated by the 2nd respondent after deleting the Pymash Nos. 723/3 and724 for his convenience and made to appear as if it contained thePymash Nos.717, 718, 721 and 722 co-related to Survey No.20/1 aloneof 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 thisCourt in W.P.No.7890 of 2007 whereunder under orders dated01.12.2009, this Court while dealing with the writ petition of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner had ordered as follows:"17.The reasons why we are unable to accept the orderpassed by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 16.06.1988 are,a)that he could not have assumed himself the jurisdiction underSection 13 of the Act 30 of 1963 without giving a finding thatthere were buildings on the property and the buildings existedon the appointed date. There is no inherent power to exercisehis jurisdiction in this regard, which he has done in theinstant case. The existence of buildings in the property onthe appointed date is sine qua non for grant of patta;b)that two serious objections were raised by the Inamdar. Onewas that they had not granted directly or by any authorisedperson any permission to the petitioner or his predecessors ininterest to be in possession of the property; and thebuildings on the property had come after the appointed date.The Assistant Settlement Officer ought to have met theseobjections and dealt with them instead of brushing them asideas general objections;c)the Assistant Settlement Officer ought to have prepared a fairsketch showing individual possessions and correlated them withreference to the documents filed with the physical possessionon ground.18.Therefore, we are not able to accept any of theobjections raised by the petitioner against the orders settingaside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order. In fact, theAssistant Settlement Officer's order was rightly set aside.But, as regards remanding the matter, while we really do notthink that there was any mistake on the part of the firstrespondent in remitting the matter to the Assistant SettlementOfficer, considering the prolonged litigation, we felt that thematter could be decided by the Settlement Officer himself. But,while remanding it to the Settlement Officer, we give him thefollowing 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 AssistantSettlement Officer to do the inspection and furnish the reportand the Assistant Settlement Officer while conducting theinspection shall do so in the presence of all parties;(3)The Settlement Officer shall independently verify whether theallegations that there are alterations in the relevant recordsare true. The observations in the impugned order shall notweigh with him. While he may not have the jurisdiction to fixthe guilt on any one, while granting patta on the basis ofrecords, definitely he should satisfy himself whether theallegation made regarding fabrication or falsification is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correct or not. The parties are entitled to produce whateverdocuments that are there to support their case."7.Thus, in sum and substance, the contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that only upon determination of civilrights and upon finding that the properties do belong to the de factocomplainant, that criminal complaint could follow.8.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat a reading of the earlier portions of the present complaint wouldreflect verbatim reproduction of that which led to filing of FIR andregistration of case in Crime No.4 of 1998 and hence, would placereliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in T.T.Antonyv. State of Kerala and others (2001) 6 SCC 181, which in effect holdsthat there cannot be two FIRs in respect of one and the sameoccurrence, this Court is unable to accept such contention. Thiscourt finds that the earlier portion of the FIR is a narration ofwhat had transpired at an earlier point of time. When the complaintin Crime No.4 of 1998 came to be registered, the occurrence which isspoken of in the present complaint had not so much as taken place.Reference to the details spelt out in the earlier complaint is seenas only providing the background of the case and circumstanceswherefrom the present offences stand committed.10.Learned counsel would also impress upon this Court that thecomplaint in the present case has been filed after a period of 6years and the inordinate delay of filing the same would establish themalafides of the de facto complainant particularly given the rivalclaims between the parties. Learned counsel would rely upon thedecision of the Honourable Apex Court in State of Haryana and othersv. Bhajanlal and others 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335,wherein it is held as follows:"(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attendedwith malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciouslyinstituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on theaccused and with a view to spite him due to private and personalgrudge."Such malafides would further stand established by the fact thatan offence under Section 420 IPC has been registered only towardsmaking out a cognizable offence and since the other offences allegedagainst the petitioner are non-cognizable.11.This Court is unable to accept the contentions made on behalfof the petitioner. Towards quashing investigation in a case at itsvery inception, this Court would have to be satisfied that a readingof the complaint and the materials submitted therewith would in noevent reflect the commission of offences. Though it is true thatthere are rival claims to the properties between the petitioner and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the de facto complainant, this by itself or taken together with thealleged delay in filing the complaint, cannot be read as reasonenough to suspect malafides. In the instant case, this Court findsthat on the face of it, the complaint would reflect commission ofoffences. Several documents have been filed by the de factocomplainant in support of his plea. It is not for us to enter uponthe merits of the claims of either side or to draw therefrom andinfer that offences do or do not stand committed. Such is anexercise which is reserved for the investigating agency. 12.In view of the above reasoning, the Criminal OriginalPetition fails. Accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrargmTo1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID Headquarters, Guindy, Chennai – 32. CBCID (X) Cr.No.64/20092.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.+ 1 c c to Mr. S. Xavier Fleix, Advocate SR.64510Crl.O.P.No.19526 of 2010 GV(CO)EU 27.09.2010.