OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR Vs. R.VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The official liquidator and the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, are aggrieved by the order passed by the Company Court in its exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the first respondent in O.S.A.Nos.463 of 2012 and 61 of 2013 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No.6535 of 2002 (after examining 44 witnesses and marking 85 documents on the side of the prosecution) initiated on the basis of the order passed by the Company Court earlier and confirmed by the Division Bench.

(2.) M/s.Anubhav Plantations Limited (in liquidation) represented through its Director Mr.C.Natesan, entered into an agreement with Thiru.Vijayakumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') for purchasing larger extent of property. We are now concerned only with respect to the property in Survey Nos.6/1, 8/1, 19/2C, 19/2D, 20, 27/1 and 27/2 in Kazhipattur Village. The respondent, pursuant to the agreement entered into by him with C.Natesan, representing Anubhav Plantations Limited, agreed to assign 12.32 1/2 acres of land at Kazhipattur Village. Though the respondent registered the document conveying the property, it was made out subsequently that he was not having valid title to convey 6.81 acres of land. The respondent proved his title only with respect to 5.51 = acres of land. He received a total consideration of Rs.1 Crore and 53 lakhs. After adjusting the value of 5.51 = acres of land, viz., Rs.62,04,375/-, he has to refund a sum of Rs.90,95,625/-. In the meantime, liquidation proceedings were initiated by the Company Court. The Division Bench of this Court, as per order dated 02.11.1999 in O.S.A.No.305 of 2011, appointed Thiru.M.Ravindran, Senior Advocate, as Administrator to look after the affairs of Anubhav Group of Companies. The official liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. The Administrator and his team took possession of records and documents belonging to the company in liquidation. The Administrator, on verification of records, found that the respondent conveyed 4.45 acres of Government land out of the total extent of 12.32 = acres registered earlier. The Administrator also found that there were 250 huts in the said land. This resulted in filing a report by the Administrator before the Company Court on 09.11.2001. The respondent filed objection to the memo and submitted that he has received only part payment from Thiru.C.Natesan and he never claimed the ownership of the land in Survey No.20 of Kazhipattur Village. The respondent maintained that the patta of the property in question was cancelled by the Sub-Collector only after the execution of sale deeds and as such, he was no way responsible for the subsequent events.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, on a perusal of the report, submitted by the Administrator, and the objection raised by the respondent, prima facie found that the records were fabricated to claim ownership over Government land and opined that investigation by the police is absolutely necessary. The learned Judge was of the view that the Government officials were also involved in fabrication of records and as such, comprehensive investigation is required. The learned Judge directed the Crime Branch CID, to investigate the matter. The State was directed to nominate an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to investigate the case.