CRL RC/1434/2017 of T.S.SELVA KUMAR, M/A 63 YEARS, Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS, on 30 December 2020

1. T.S. Selvakumar2. T.S. Pasupathy..PetitionerVs.

State Rep byThe Inspector of Police,Central Crime Branch,Team 19Vepery, Chennai.746 of 2008) ..Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Revision petition is filed U/s 397 and401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4816of 2012 dated 31.07.2017 in C.C.No.5123 of 2010 pending trial onthe file of III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town,Chennai and discharge the accused from the above case.

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Rajarathinam for Mr.S.SundaresanFor Respondent : Mr. K. Madhan Government Advocate( Crl side)

This petition has been filed against the order of learnedIII Metropolitan Magistrate George town, Chennai in CriminalM.P.No.4816 of 2012 in C.C.No. 5123 of 2010.

2. This Criminal M.P.No.4816 of 2012 was filed by thepetitioners who are accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.5123 of 2010under section 239 of Cr.P.C for discharging them from the case.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

It is seen from the averments made in the petition that a casehas been registered against the petitioners along with sevenothers for the alleged offences under sections 419, 420,465,467,468 and 471 read with 109 and 120(b) of I.P.C and a final reporthas been filed. The allegations against the petitioners is thatthe petitioners have joined with other accused and familymembers who are legal heirs of late T.N.Subramaniam andexecuted a release deed in favour of one of their family membersT.N.S. Ravi kumar. On the strength of the release deed, thefirst accused T.N.S. Ravi Kumar had executed several documentsand encumbered the property of the defacto complainant who isalleged to have purchased the property from the legal heirs oflate Palaniandi Pillai through power agent S. UdayKumar.

3. The petitioners submitted that they are only thesignatories of the release deed dated 22.08.2005. When otherpersons, who are similarly placed like petitioners, were shownas witnesses, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused. Thepetitioners along with others have executed documents likecancellation of release deed and deed of declaration in favourof the defacto complainant on the direction of the police. TheDistrict Registrar, Administration by an order dated 08.05.2012had up held the registered documents of the year 2005 and setaside the subsequent documents executed by the defactocomplainant. The documents filed along with the final reporthave lost its credentials. There is no evidence to show that thepetitioners have anything to do with the alleged offences.Therefore the petitioners have to be discharged from the case.

4. The respondent filed a detailed counter and the sum andsubstance of the counter is that the property involved in thiscase, along with other properties were allotted to parties in acompromise entered in a civil suit in C.S. No 7 of 1959 dated24.12.1993 by this Court. The father of the first petitionerT.N. Subramania Mudaliar, was one of the tenants in the premisessituated in Door No.512 Mint Street and he has entrusted withthe work of collecting rent from other tenants and paying to theowner. T.N.Subramaniam died on 04.08.1988 leaving behind, thefamily members. Tmt.S.Sagundala(wife), V.Rani(Daughter) and sonsT.S.Selvakumar, T.N.S.Ravikumar, T.S. Harikumar, T.S.SampathKumar, T.S.Pasupathy and T.S.Sivakumar. A notice was sent byspecial Tahsildar in the name of T.N.Subramaniam to Door No.512Mint Street, for which the wife of T.N. Subramania Mudaliar senta reply stating that they are only tenants and the owners areE.Koteeswaran, S. Rajamaniammal and K. Kamalammal and requestedthat the demand notice to be sent to the above property owners.On 03.04.1999 S.Sakundala and other legal heirs ofT.N.Subramaniam had reported to the Assistant Revenue Officer,Zone-2, Corporation of Chennai and informed that as per the final order of High Court in C.S.No.7 of 1959 dated 24.12.1999Door No.512, Mint Street was divided into 3 subdivisions andallotted to 1. E.Koteeswarai and others, 2. S.Rajamaniammal andothers and 3.N. Kamalammal and others. Sepearte assements havebeen made in favour of these persons in respect of Door No. 512Mint street T.N.Subramaniam was only a tenant of this propertyand he was never the owner of Door No.512 Mint Street.Therefore, they requested the mistake to be rectified bycancelling the assessment in the name of T.N.Subramaniam inrespect of Door No.511. The first accused T.N.S.Ravikumar madethe legal heirs of the deceased T.N. Subramanim to execute abogus release deed by making false representation that the pieceand parcel of land shops and sheds in premises bearing DoorNo.511 Mint street originally belonged to one Kuppusamy Mudaliarand he gave the property to his son-in-law T.N.SubramaniamMudaliar as sreedhana at the time of marriage of her daughterSakunthala. Mrs.Malathi @ Koteeswari and Hari Kumar, legal heirsof the deceased Subramaniam Mudaliyar did not turn up and signthe release deed. But A2 impersonated Malathi @ Koteeswari andA3 had impersonated Harikumar and signed the release deed.Based on this bogus release deed, A1 T.N.S. Ravikumar hadexecuted several documents and encumbered the property of thedefacto complainant. The investigation discloses that A1 to A9have joined together and entered into criminal conspiracy,created bogus documents and grabbed the land of the defactocomplainant. Subsequently, Sagunthala, Vijayalakshmi, V. Rani,T.S. Selvakumar, T.S. Sambathkumar, Sivakumar formed a group ofone party and Manimegalai, Malathi @ Kotesswari, S.Kumatha @manjula, Nagalingam, T.S.Hari Kumar formed a group as secondparty and executed the cancellation of release deed on07.09.2009. The release deed was executed at the inducement andmisrepresentation of first accused T.N.S. Ravikumar A2 and A3have impersonated as Malathi Alias Koteeswari and T.N.S. HariKumar respectively. The investigation report discloses A1 to A5had conspired among themselves and created bogus release deed.Therefore, they arrayed as accused. The other executants of thebogus release deed acted upon the false representation of A1,T.N.S.Ravikumar. Therefore, they are not included as accused inthis case, but shown as witnesses. The accused persons have alsogiven voluntary confessional statement admitting to their guiltand there are several materials to presume that they areaccused under the provisions aforesaid. Therefore, therespondent prayed for the dismissal of this petition.

5. On considering the materials placed before the trialcourt, the trial court passed a common order in Crl.M.P.4916 of2012 and other Criminal M.P's filed by other accused fordischarge and dismissed all the petitions on the ground thatthere are prima facie materials available to show that there aregrounds to presume that the accused committed the offences alleged against them and in this view of the matter dismissedall the petitions. Against the said dismissal orders, thepetitioners have filed this Revision petition.

6. The point for consideration in this petition is whetherthere is illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the orderpassed by the learned Judicial Magistrate while dismissing thedischarge petition filed in Criminal M.P.No.4816 of 2002.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that themain grievance of the petitioner is that when all the othersimilarly placed persons like the petitioners have been shown aswitnesses, it is not proper to show the petitioners as accusedinstead of witnesses. There are materials to show that therelease deed had been executed at the instance of the firstaccused. The release deed was executed by the brothers andsisters of the first accused along with their mother. Even inthe counter, it is alleged that the first accusedT.N.S.Ravikumar made the other legal heirs of T.N.Subramainanto execute the release deed by falsely representating that theproperty in Door No.511, Mint Street originally belonged toKuppusamy Mudaliyar and he had given the said land to his son-in-law T.N.Subramaniam Mudaliyar at the time of marriage withhis daughter Sakunthala.

8. It is seen from the order of the trial court order thatManimegalai, Malathi @ Koteeswari, Kumatha@ Manjula,Nagalingam , T.S.Harikumar, T.S.Pasupathi have not signed therelease deed and their signatures were forged and they do notknow the contents of the said release deed. It is furtherdiscussed that investigation reveals that Sakuntala,Vijayalakshmi, V. Rani, T.S.Selvakumar, T.B.Sampathkumar,T.S.Sivakumar stated that they signed the release deed at theinstance of T.N.S.Sivakumar, due to misrepresentation and falseassurance given by him. Therefore, all of them executed thecancellation of release deed to rectify the mistake. They havealso executed the deed of declaration. Statement of Sakunthalawas also extracted in the order passed by the Trial Court . Itis seen from this statement that the release deed dated22.08.2008 was executed as requested by Ravi Kumar and he gotthe release deed by making false representation. It is alsoclear from this statement that after knowing about the mistake,they executed the cancellation of release deed on 03.09.2009 andexecuted the deed of declaration in favour of the defactocomplainant on 27.09.2009. The deed of declaration is alsoplaced for the perusal of this Court. It is made clear in thedeed of declaration that A1 T.N.S.Ravikumar misrepresented tothe other parties with regard to the title of the property andmade them to execute the release deed. Subsequently on coming to know about the mis representation, the legal heirs ofT.N.S.Subramaninan executed cancellation of release deed andexecuted deed of declaration in favour of the defactocomplainant.

9. Perusal of the materials placed before this Court showsthat the release deed was executed on the basis of falserepresentation made by the first accused. Subsequently theyexecuted cancellation of release deed, deed of declaration infavour of the defacto comlainant to nullify the release deed. Infact, the defacto complainant undertook to withdraw civil andcriminal proceedings against the accused. The petitioners beforethis Court, who are A4 and A5 before the lower Court, are alsosimilarly placed like their brothers and sisters who haveexecuted the release deed, cancellation of release deed and deedof declaration. Therefore, the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that when the other similarly placedpersons like the petitioners had been shown as witnesses, it isnot just and fair that the petitioners had been shown as accusedhas force in it, especially when the defacto complainantundertook to withdraw the criminal case in deed of declaration.It is also seen from the counter that several litigations arepending between the parties with regard to the alleged righttitle and interest in the property. The issues relate to righttitle and interest have to be decided by a competent civilCourt. Available materials shows that A1 is the main accused inthis case. A2 and A3 have impersonated Malathy (A) Kotesswariand Hari Kumar respectively.

10. As already stated, the petitioners and other accusedexecuted the release deed at the instance of A1, T.N.S.RaviKumar and on coming to know about the real facts they executedcancellation of release deed and deed of declaration in favourof the defacto complainant. It is also the case of theprosecution that the release deed was executed on the basis offalse representation made on the 1st accused T.N.S.Ravi Kumar.No other additional or special role or criminal act wasspecifically attributed against the petitioner than the roleattributed to other accused, who are shown as witness now.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that thepetitioner should also be given the same benefit which was givento other accused, who are shown as witnesses now. In this viewof the matter, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate inCrl.M.P.No.4816 of 2012 in C.C.No.5123 of 2010 is set aside andthis Criminal Revision petition is allowed.

9. In the result this petition is allowed. The petitionersare discharged from prosecution in C.C.No.5123 of 2010 pendingon the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town,Chennai. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. This case is of the year 2010, the learned JudicialMagistrate is directed to dispose the case within 3 months fromthe date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

smn

To 1. The III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, State of Tamilnadu, Central Crime Branch, Team 19, Vepery, Chennai.3. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 8.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai – 104.Crl. R.C.No.1434 of 2017 andCrl.M.P.Nos. 14188 and 14189 of 2017CO(NRL)BDL/19/01/2021