KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.6526 of 2010 pending trial on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai for the offence under Sections 447 r/w 420, 465, 467, 468 r/w 471 of IPC, has filed this quash petition.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that one Yashodammal and Premila purchased plot No.4 in survey No.241/1C in TANSI Nagar, Taramani Road, Velacherry through document No.2181/01 and 2182/01, dated 01.06.2001 of 2187 and 2062 sq.ft, totally 4249 sq.ft from Ethiraj and Ramamurthy sons of Narashimalu Naicker. Yashodammal and Premila executed power of attorney in favour of one Benny Mathew to sell the property through registered power document Nos.1069 and 1070 of 2007, dated 16.04.2007. The said property was conveyed by way of sale deed to one Beemaraja by document No.3648/07 and 3649/07, dated 23.08.2007 for total sale consideration for Rs.63,74,259/-. The purchaser Beemaraja/2nd respondent visited the property.The petitioner/accused Krishnan claimed that the property is in his possession and belonged to him and he had obtained power connection and put up construction. Further, the patta issued in the name of Yashodammal and Premila were cancelled at the instance of the petitioner and the petitioner is presently holding patta in his name. The land is a Government poramboke land and it is under his continuous, enjoyment for decades. Further claimed that Ethiraj son of Narashimalu Naicker, who is vendor to Yashodammal and Beemaraja had executed an agreement for sale of plot to his wife Rani on 07.08.1978 and a substantial amount of sale consideration was already paid. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner had given false particulars, made false claim and created forged documents as though the land is a government poramboke land and executed a forged indemnity bond and made representation to the authorities knowingly he is not the owner or got any right over the property. Hence, a case came to be registered. During investigation LW1 to LW9 were examined and several documents from the registration authorities, revenue authorities, TNEB and from Land and Survey Authorities were obtained and thereafter, charge sheet came to be filed.

(3.) The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts that whether alleged overtact of the petitioner meet out the ingredients of offence narrated in the final report. The trial Court mechanically taken the case on file and issued summons to the petitioner. As early as 1978, the petitioner's wife had entered into an agreement of sale with Ethiraj, the then owner of the said property. The sale consideration had been paid. Thereafter, his wife Rani was put in possession of the property. The said Ethiraj failed to execute any sale deed from 1978. The petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property by putting up super structure in the property and have been paying all the taxes to revenue and municipal authorities till date. The continuous possession and enjoyment is well within the knowledge of the legal heirs of Narashimalu Naicker namely Ethiraj and Ramamurthy. During the year 1996, the said Narashimalu Naicker died, the legal heirs of Narashimalu Naicker Ethiraj and Ramamurthy sold the said property to Yashodammal and Premila in the year 2004. The said Yashodammal and Premila earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2152 of 2004 before the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner entered his appearance in the said suit, filed written statement along with 47 undisputed and unimpeachable documents to prove his peaceful possession since 1978. After filing of written statement, the plaintiff Yashodammal and Premila withdrew the suit on 28.09.2006. The 2nd respondent Beemaraj was aware of the background and litigations in the property, purchased the property from Yashodammal and Premila to perfect the title and to get possession thereby a civil dispute has been given a criminal cloak by the above case.