KARUMUTHU S CHOCKALINGAM Vs. T KANNAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRI. R. C. No. 728 of 1975 has been preferred by one Karumuthu S. Chockalingam, whose private complaint against four persons alleging offences Under Sections 447, 448, 379 and 380 I. P. C, was dismissed by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate III, Madurai Under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. Cri, M. P. No. 4461/75 has been filed by the revision petitioner, raising certain additional grounds in the aforesaid criminal revision case. The criminal revision case came up for admission and since even if it is admitted, this revision being against the order of dismissal of a complaint Under Section 203, Cr. P. C. the accused persons would not be entitled to any notice, elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the matter was heard fully.

(2.) IN his private complaint filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Madurai, the complainant-revision petitioner has made the following allegations. He is the Director of the Sri Sivagami Mills Limited, Madurai, the Rukmini Mills Limited, the Sri Rajendra Mills Limited and the Sri Sivagami Computer Service Private Limited and was a Director of the Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited from 1973 to 1974 and is a graduate in Electrical Engineering and Engineering Administration of the Michigan, Technological University, and is a grandson of the late Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar and a son of T. Sundaram Chettiar who predeceased his father Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar who died on 29-7-1974. Being the son of a predeceased son of Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar. he, the complainant is one of the legal heirs of the late Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar who died possessed of declared jewellery as well as undeclared jewellery, unaccounted money, curios, costly carpets and other valuable articles which had been kept in the main bungalow of the Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited where he was residing during his lifetime and after his death his heirs were joint owners of those assets and were in joint possession of the same and those assets had not been partitioned among the legal heirs and actually the shares that stood in the name of the late Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar in various companies and other properties, movable and immovable, owned by him have not yet been partitioned among the heirs. However, a written agreement dated 3-11-1974 was executed between the legal heirs whereby shares in companies which stood in different names were exchanged and transferred and the written agreement was preceded by an oral agreement regarding the division of the business and it was agreed in September, 1974 that the parties should vacate the premises occupied by them in case the management was not in the hands of the parties who were in occupation of the premises. Under the written agreement dated 3-11-1974 the controlling interest and the management of the Sree Meenakshi Mills went to T. Manickavasagam Chettiar, S. Thiagarajan and K. S. Sethu. The main bungalow in the Meenakshi Mills which was owned by the Sri Meenakshi Mills and which was in the occupation of the late Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar till his death, had been by a lease agreement dated 8-2-1973 leased out by the Sree Meenakshi Mills to Thiagaraja Chetty and Sons Private Limited and by a rental agreement dated 10-2-1973 Thiagaraja Chetty and Sons Private Limited had sublet the premises to Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar for a period of 6 years but that sub-lease came to an end in the death of Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar. While matters were so the first accused T. Kannappan, the Executive Director of the Thiagaraja Mills, Kappalur, as if he and his mother the 2nd accused were lessee of the afore said premises caused the clerk in the office of the Thiagaraja Chetty and Sons Private Limited to write a letter to him demanding the arrears of rent as lessee and made paymen and got a receipt just to make it appear that he and his mother were lessee, but they got back the amount of Rs. 9,600/-which had been so paid; whereupon Thiagaraja Chetty and Sons Private Limited wrote to the first accused to return the stamped receipt. Since it had been agreed that all properties belonging to the respective Mills can be occupied only by those to whom the management and shares of the Mills had been transferred and the party occupying property which does not belong to him should vacate the same, the second accused (who is the mother of the first accused) Srimathi Radha, the Managing Director of the Thiagaraja Mills, Kappalur, had to vacate the Meenakshi Mills bungalow before November, 1974; but she was allowed to stay on in that bungalow till July 1974 even after which she failed to vacate the bungalow under some pretext or the other. But the complainant's brother S. Thiagarajan was insisting that the first and second accused should vacate the bungalow, and on 29-8-1975, learning that the first and the second accused were about to vacate the bunglow, the complainant's brother Thiagaraja wanted to get the boxes and baggages sought to be removed from the bungalow examined for the purpose of finding out whether they contained the jewellery, money and other valuable articles belonging to the estate of the late Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar which had been kept in the bungalow but the first and second accused bluntly refused to allow such examination and on the same day they locked up the rooms and safes in the bungalow and left the bungalow and handed over only the key of the main door to the Sree Meenakshi Mills Office, but took away the other keys with them and the bungalow remained locked till 30-91975, but on the morning of 30-9-1975 the first accused came with Sri V. K. Thiagarajan, a Deputy Superintendent of Police from Madras and Sri Ramanujam, the local Circle Inspector of Police, CID and some other C. I. D. Inspectors from Madras and with two vans of the armed reserve police surrounded the main bungalow in the compound of the Meenakshi Mills and the first accused with the aid of the Police and with goondas employed by the third accused entered into the bungalow and locked all the doors and windows of that bungalow from the inside, packed various movable properties belonging to the estate of Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar including declared jewellery and undeclared jewellery, unaccounted money and other valuable articles belonging to the estate of the late Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar and took away those movables to unknown destinations in lorries, cars, and tractors with trailers, making about 14 trips for the purpose of taking away the said movables from the bungalow during a period of 3 days and the third accused who is the Director of the Sri Visalakshi Mill Limited with his son brought goondas and intentionally aided the first accused in the removal of those movables and the watchman and other staff members of the Sree Meenakshi Mills were warned by the D. S. P. not to come near the bungalow or to inspect the vehicles in which those goods were being removed under the threat that they would be detained under the M. I. S. A. if they disobeyed his order and the police officials told the complainant's brother and other members of the family that they were acting under the I. G. 's instructions.

(3.) IT is further asserted in the complaint that the fact that a D. S. P. was sent from Madras would show that the I. G. would not have given the directions and even assuming, but without admitting, that he had given such directions, he would not have done so without the intervention of the higher authorities and in this case it was clear that the higher authority was the fourth accused, the Minister for Law of the Madras Government who had intervened and extended unofficial police help to the first and second accused for so taking away the movables and even subsequently after the removal of the movables the police force was kept there and the legal heirs and owners of the property were not allowed to enter the bungalow. It is further asserted in the complaint that subsequent developments which took place clearly showed that the fourth accused had taken the side of the first and second accused against the legal heirs with the intention of causing gain for himself and the first and the second accused, and for causing loss to the complainant and other legal heirs and after the aforesaid offences of theft and criminal trespass had been committed with the active aid of the third and fourth accused, the fourth accused brought pressure to bear on the legal heirs of Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar to agree to the terms of the first and second accused and the fourth accused sent word through the complainant's brother asking the complainant to go and meet him, but the complainant refused to do so and the fourth accused sent word to the complainant's brother and his uncle's son to go and meet him and to submit to the terms proposed by him and he held three or four conferences in his residence at Madras and one Periannan, Managing Director of Hotel Atlantic was brought in by the fourth accused and all these would indicate that the fourth accused had allowed himself to be involved in a purely domestic matter of the family. The complainant has further stated in his complaint that he would produce the tape recording of the discussions which the fourth accused had as stated above; and that it was the fourth accused who had the key of the bungalow and on 5-10-1975 the fourth accused sent Periannan to prepare an inventory of the articles left in the bungalow and it was found that only some curios and a few jewels kept in a safe, for which the first and the second accused did not have the key (which was with the Meenakshi Mills Office), were found; and on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th of October, 1975, the Income-Tax Department raided the Meenakshi Group of Mills and Bungalows and the Income-Tax Officials asked the brother of the complainant for the key of the main bungalow whereupon the complainant's brother told the officials that the key was with Periannan and Periannan was contacted and he said that the key was with the fourth accused.