R.D.JAYARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.O.P.No.629 of 2011 is filed by the Accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.103 of 2007 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and Crl.O.P.No.30140 of 2010 is by the Accused Nos.6 & 11 in the same Calendar Case for quashing the charge sheet pending against them. Since both the applications have been filed by the co-accused to quash the very same proceedings pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, both the applications are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The first respondent police had filed the final report as against the petitioners and 13 others for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(b) IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant's wife one Jhansi Rani is having 22 cents of land in Survey No.24/1 in Kolathur Village and the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 are having 28 1/2 cents land on the eastern side of that land. The accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 have given a power of attorney to the accused No.1 through registered power deeds dated 31.10.1996 in document numbers 2068/96, 2067/96 and 2148/96. In the said power deeds, the accused No.1 made certain manipulations as if there is a pathway and made an application to the Tahsildhar on 02.08.1999 for patta by conducting re-survey. The Accused Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 / the revenue officials without conducting an enquiry made a recommendation to the Survey and Settlement Board to effect changes in the revenue records incorporating the pathway. The accused Nos.12,13 and 14 / officials of the District Land and Survey have also made corrections in the sketch and sent the same to the Taluk office, Perambur. The accused Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 have made corrections to the revenue records as if there was a common pathway to the properties of the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 and issued a patta in favour of the accused No.1 with changes. The Accused Nos.10 and 11 have also assisted the other accused in this process of alteration.

(3.) Based on the said manipulated documents, the accused No.1 made an application to the Corporation and the officials of the Corporation / Accused Nos.15.16 and 17 have issued approval as if there is a common pathway. The manipulations in the power deeds have been carried out in the Sub Registrar office after the execution of the document and therefore, on the complaint of the de facto complainant, an enquiry was ordered in Sub Registrar office, Sembium. The enquiry report confirmed the manipulations carried out in the document Nos.2067/96 and 2068/96, 2148/96 and in document Nos.2738/80, 2739/80. The District Collector had also, after verification, cancelled the patta issued in favour of the accused No.1. The Commissioner of Corporation had also, after verification, cancelled the order of approval granted in favour of the accused No.1. Hence, the final report was filed by the first respondent police as against the petitioners and other officials.