IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.04.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
CRL.O.P.No.31895 of 2006
and M.P.No.1 of 2006
M.R.Reddiar .. Petitioner
-Vs-
The state rep. By
The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
St. Thomas Mount, Chennai
kancheepuram District. .. Respondent
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in connection with the Crime No. 26 of 1996, on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai and quash the F.I.R. In the same as against the petitioner.
-----
For Petitioner : Mr. R. John Sathyan
for Mr.D.Raja
For Respondent : Mr. J.C. Durairaj
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
For defacto
complainant : Mr. Chidambaram
-----
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R. pending against him in Crime No.26 of 1996, on the file of the respondent police.
2. According to the petitioner, the defacto complainant had foisted a false case for alleged offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. against him as also against one Kanniappan. The primary allegation is that the petitioner had executed 8 sale deeds of the properties belonging to the defacto complainant by impersonating him. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was assisted by one Kanniappan in such action. The petitioner states that the defacto complainant and his brother who were joint owners of the property, approached him towards sale thereof and pursuant to the petitioner paying an advance amount of Rs.75,000/- keeping with the agreement of sale entered on 21.06.1991, the defacto complainant and his brother executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused Kanniappan. Thereunder, sale of a portion was effected to the petitioner, his son and daughter, while the remaining portion was sold by the defacto complainant and his brother directly. With a wrongful intent, the defacto complainant had filed a suit in O.S. No. 1104 of 1993 seeking relief of injunction restraining the registration of sale deeds as stated above. The petitioner further informs that the defacto complainant expired on 27.06.2000 and the legal heirs were pursuing the suit filed by him. The complaint preferred by the defacto complainant with the Inspector General of Registration on 24.04.1996, in turn was referred to the respondent police. The defacto complainant filed another complaint before the Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police Station, Chennai, on 05.12.1994. The petitioner informs that both the Inspector of Police, Pallavaram as also the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, conducted an enquiry and concluded that the case is of civil nature. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the above position, the defacto complainant with a malafide intention had lodged a further complaint to the respondent police and owing to the exercise of undue influence on them, the case came to be registered in Crime No. 26 of 1996 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.
3. Urging the above factual contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is merely a civil dispute between the parties and had been found to be so under two investigations, which had been done on the filing of malafide complaints against the petitioner. Again an F.I.R. had been registered in the year 1996 and the investigation is pending till date. Such position itself has caused immense hardship to the petitioner. Given the position that no investigation worthwhile has been conducted over such a long period and that it could be gathered that there was no truth what so ever in the complaint, further harassment to the petitioner ought to be avoided and as such the F.I.R. under Crime No. 26 of 1996 is to be quashed.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the case is still pending investigation. The learned counsel for the respondent who strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the suit filed on behalf of the defacto complainant as against the petitioner, stands decreed. The petitioner has not moved any appeal there against.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that having had no progress in the investigation of the case filed by the defacto complainant, since 1994, the petitioner has moved this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 770 of 2006, wherein it was directed that the investigation of the case should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 03.04.2006. Despite such order, the respondent police had failed to take any action and thereupon, the wife of the defacto complainant had moved a contempt petition. Such contempt petition was closed, since the present quash petition was pending and as there was an order of stay.
6. Considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that there was a valid agreement of sale entered into between the defacto complainant and the petitioner herein. What the complainant has complained of is the wrongful action of the petitioner and the other accused in execution of sale deeds in respect of a part of the property covered by such agreement. Apparently, the issue between the parties stems out of misunderstanding on a civil contract. No investigation worth the while has been done in the present case, and it is submitted that two complaints preferred earlier by the defacto complainant stood closed as being civil in nature.
7. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the pendency of crime registered against the petitioner over a period of 14 years in itself is undue harassment and such harassment ought not to be permitted to continue. In the circumstances of the case, and where investigation has not moved forward for such a long period, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 26 of 1996, on the file of the respondent police.
8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in Crime No. 26 of 1996, on the file of the Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
kj
To
The state rep. By
The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
St. Thomas Mount, Chennai
Kancheepuram District