S. PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petition has been filed by the 5th accused in Cr.No.802 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent praying for quashing of the FIR lodged for the offences under Ss. 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(9) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

(2.) The allegations in the FIR are that the defacto complainant is the owner of 1.43 acres of land comprised in S.Nos.341 an 342/1 in Ayyapakkam village, Villivakkam Panchayat Union, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and his parents were cultivating the said lands. They were working in the Firm called RR Brick Works belonging to the first and the second accused. The first two accused approached the complainant and requested to permit them to take the top soil from the said lands for the purpose of brick kiln business. The defacto complainant believing the words of the first and second accused namely Mr.Babu and Mr.Raja entered into an Agreement of Sale on 29/9/1994, and received an advance of Rs.10,000.00. The 3rd respondent also handed over the original title deeds of the said land to those two persons. After the work of removing the top soil was over, the defacto complainant/3rd respondent requested the two accused to hand over the original documents and possession of land. However, the first two accused made the defacto complainant believe that the documents would not be misused. The third respondent/defacto complainant came to know subsequently that the property in question was sought to be developed as plots and approached the above said two accused and they gave evasive answers. Thereafter, he had applied for encumbrance certificate and found to his shock that the wives of the first two accused (i.e.) A3 and A4 had fraudulently created documents to make it appear that they had purchased the property in the year 1998. Thereafter, the third and fourth accused had fraudulently sold the lands to the petitioner herein in the year 2001. In the said sale deed, it is shown that the earlier sale deed in 1998 was registered on the file of Sub Registrars' Office Ambattur and the document number was shown as 919 of 1998. When the defacto complainant applied for said document it showed that the names of third parties and it did not pertain to the land belonging to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the defacto complainant had filed a complaint and the FIR stating that the fifth accused/petitioner has mentioned a bogus document and hence the transaction is fraudulent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/5th accused in the FIR would submit that the allegations in the FIR would show that they were mainly as against the first four accused. The only grievance against the 5th accused is that in the sale deed executed in his favour a bogus document was mentioned. He would submit that the sale deed inadvertently mentioned that the earlier sale deed was registered in Sub Registrars' Office Ambattur but in fact, it was registered in the Sub Registrars' Office Konnur. A typographical/clerical error had crept in the sale deed. It does not mean that it is a bogus document. In any case, it is not the case of the defacto complainant that the signatures of the vendors and the purchasers were forged in the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. It is also not their case that no such documents was registered. Hence, the learned counsel submitted there are absolutely no allegations as against the 5 th accused/ petitioner and the allegations are inherently improbable. The FIR in so far as the 5th accused/petitioner is concerned does not disclose any offence and hence is an abuse of process of law.