S.CHELLAPPAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises from the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, 2nd respondent in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.384 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, XVIII Team Central Crime Branch, Egmore. The case of the de-facto complainant/2nd respondent emanates from the sequence of events narrated below. The 2nd respondent's father Dr.Rama Pandiyaraj was the original owner of the property measuring 1.04 acress, out of which 2 grounds and 1613 sq.ft. is the area in dispute. The 2nd respondent in his complaint dated 02.04.2012 with the Commissioner of Police, Egmore has alleged that the petitioner along with one Kantha Praveen Mehta and Kumar Praveen Mehta conspired and fabricated documents in order to grab this property of 2 grounds and 1613 sq.ft. Further one Adalarasan had fabricated a power of attorney in the year 2004-2005 for the said 2 grounds 1613 sq.ft. and obtained a patta in C.A.37/04/05 in the name of Kantha Praveen Mehta. Based on the 2nd respondent's complaint on this, the patta was cancelled by the District Collector in 2011. In the meanwhile, Kantha Praveen Mehta made a conformation deed of "an oral settlement" of the said property to her son Kumar Praveen Mehta in 2010 and document No.2019/2010 states that the oral settlement was as early as 1987. Based on this confirmation deed, the property measuring 2 grounds and 1613 sq.ft. was sold to one Mr.Chellappan through a registered sale deed dated 18.08.2010 vide document No.6083/2010 of the Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet. Hence, the complaint against the Kantha Praveen Mehta, Kumar Praveen Mehta and Chellappa, the present petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner herein was arrested on 06.12.2012 and later was enlarged on bail on 12.12.2012. He has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR registered in Crime No.384 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, XVIII Team, Central Crime Branch, Egmore. The petitioner's contentions are that he is a respectable senior citizen in the society, having business extending to Singapore, that he is only a subsequent purchaser of the property from one Kantha Praveen Mehta in 2010 and that the de-facto complainant/2nd respondent has not approached the police with clean hands , since he has suppressed the civil litigations and also has not given any supporting documents for the allegation of forgery.