MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MADURAI BENCH
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
Crl.O.P.(MD) No. of 2024
Against
(First Information Report in Crime No.200/2017 dated
09.06.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent/complainant)
J.Vasanthi, (F/60)
W/o. Janakiraman,
Door No.51, Reddiar Street,
Thathayangarpettai,
Pillathurai, Musuri Taluk
Trichy District … Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.200/2017) … Respondent/ Complainant
2. Swamydass,
S/o.Mathew Seenivasan,
11/8 Barathidhasan Colony,
Main road,
Kalaignar karunanithi Nagar,
Chennai District. … 2nd Respondent / De-facto
Complainant
QUASH PETITION
2
The address for service of all notices and processes on the
petitioner is that of his counsel M/s.A. RAJENDHRAN, M.
CHANDRABOSE having his office at No. 146 , Law Chambers,
High Court Building, Madurai – 625 023.
The address for service of all notices and processes on the
respondents are the same as mentioned herein above.
The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking
for a direction to Quash the Impugned First Information Report in
Crime No.200/2017 dated 09.06.2017, on the file of the 2 nd
respondent, based on the alleged complaint given by the 3rd
respondent for the following facts and circumstances of the case.
As per the First Information Report, the factual matrix
of the case as follows:-
1. The Defacto complainant Shri. Swamydass is the resident of
11/8 Barathidhasan Colony, main road, Kalaignar
Karunanithi nagar, Chennai.
2. One late Sir Muthiah David devadass was the owner of old
survey Nos. 432/1, 433, 434/1, 435/2Part, 436 Part, 691
Part and 690 Part of Vilpatti village, Kodaikanal Taluk. The
corresponding new survey Numbers are 1008/5 and
1008/5A. After the demise of late Sir Muthiah David
devadass, his son Shri Muthu krishna devadass succeeded
him through a will. Then one late Mohammad Sulaiman has
purchased the property from him vide document number
18/83. Later Mohammad Sulaiman got settlement patta
Page No :
3
1840 for the above lands along with other lands in his
possession. In the re settlement, new suvey number 1008/5
was given for all the above lands and subsequently it
become 1008/5A. The 3rd Respondent/ Swamydass
purchased a small portion of the above land, 63 cents in
document number 1559/96 dated 27.08.1996 and 55.5
cents in document numbers 885/2001 and 886/2001 both
dated 30.07.2001, from the said Mohammed Sulaiman.
Thereafter the 3rd respondent applied for change of patta to
Tahsildar, Kodaikanal along with sale deeds and other
documents and on the basis of the documents, the Tahsildar
issued separate patta in the name of the 3rd respondent for
the survey number 1008/7. Since 3 rd respondent has not
applied for separate patta with regard to 1008/11, the patta
stood in the name of vendor Mohammed sulaiman.
3. In the meanwhile the succeeding Tahsildar, Kodaikanal
illegally transferred the pattas in the name of the petitioner
Vasanthi at the instigation of her husband Janairaman, a
suspended Sub registrar,Trichy by forging Documents for
unlawful gains for the above referred lands.
4. The 3rd respondent alleged that without giving notice to him,
the Tahsildar who is named as 3 rd Accused in the FIR, with
the assistance of 4th accused V.A.O and 5th accused clerk of
the Tahsildar Office had transferred patta in favour of the
petitioner Vasanthi and they had hatched a conspiracy to
forge documents and got unlawful gains with regard to his
property.
Page No :
4
5. On noticing, the fraudulent activities of the petitioner and
others, 3rd respondent filed an application before the
Dindigul District Collector on 05.02.2008 and the District
collector appointed one Vivenkananthan to enquire the
subject matter and to report. He had submitted the report
reference no. 1/2008 on 15.02.2008. subsequently another
enquiry officer U.K Chandharsekar was also appointed to file
a final report with regard to the transfer of patta. He
submitted final report on 25.03.2009 in
N.K.No.6191/2009/H4 concluding that the Accused A1 to
A5 listed in the FIR had committed conspiracy, forgery and
misappropriation and recommend for further action.
Thereafter the de facto complainant /3 rd respondent filed a
criminal complaint before the District Crime branch on
25.07.2009 and the complaint was registered as crime
number 26/2010 under section 120B,406,408,409,465,468
and 471 of Indian Penal Code.
6. As there was no progress in the investigation, the defacto
complainant approached the senior Police officer of the
district and got transferred the case file from DCB, Dindigul
to the file of Kodaikanal Police station / 2nd respondent
through the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent re-
registered the case as crime no.200/2017 under section
120B,406,408,409,465,468 and 471 of IPC and the case is
being investigated. The First Information Report has been
sent to the Jurisdictional Magistrate for Trial proceedings
and the trail is yet to begin.
Page No :
5
VERSION OF THE PETITIONER
7. The petitioner is a house wife and his father is a business
man. He has got enormous wealth. She had purchased two
items of vacant lands comprised in survey numbers 1008/7
and 1008/11 from Jyothi alias Jothi Nageswaran grandson
of late Raja chidambara Reddiar and Ramani alias
Ramanikandam wife of late Nagarathiam and Daughter of
late Raja chidambaram reddiar of Manakkal Village, lalgudi,
Trichy district (died on 07.10.1986), a big mirasdar of Trichy
District with several hundreds of fertile lands in the river
cauvery basin, by means of registered sale deed in Doc. No.
2096/2002 dated 10.06.2002. The sale deed was executed
at the District registrar office, Dindigul. Since then she has
been in active physical possession and enjoyment of the
land in her own right, title and possession by paying kists to
the revenue department of Tamil Nadu.
8. The survey numbers 1008/7 and 1008/11 are co related to
the old survey number 437, for which, late Raja chidambara
reddiar has title since 1943. The petitioner applied for the
patta for the survey numbers 1008/7 and 1008/11 of
Vilpatti village before the Tahsildar, Kodaikanal. After
verifying all the documents, previous title and conducting
enquiry, the Tahsildar, Kodaikanal granted patta in the
name of the petitioner in patta no.1697 for the survey
numbers 1008/7 and 1008/11 among other numbers of
Vilaptti village vide his order in Na. Ka. 3390/2002 dated
09/07/2002.
Page No :
6
9. Against the order of the Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent filed
an appeal before the Revenue Divisional officer, Kodaikanal
claiming patta over the lands comprised in survey numbers
1008/7 and 1008/11. The 3rd respondent had purchased
three piece of lands of 63 cents comprised in survey number
1008/5 through document number 1559/96 dated
27.08.1996, 35.5 cents comprised in survey number 1008/5
through document numbers 885/2001 dated 30/07/2001
and 20 cents comprised in 1008/5 through document
number 886/2001 dated 30.07.2001 from one late
Mohammad sulaiman. The 3rd respondent has never
purchased the survey numbers 1008/7 and 1008/11. By
using the above said sale deeds, the 3 rd respondent
fraudulently obtained patta for the survey number 1008/7
of Vilpatti village in his name. Since the 3rd respondent
correctly transferred the patta for the survey numbers
1008/7 and 1008/11 to the petitioner on 09/07/2002, in
the year 2003, the 3rd respondent filed a civil suit against
the petitioner in the District Munsif court, Kodaikanal in
O.S. No. 58/2003 praying for declaration for the survey
numbers 1008/3 and 1008/5. Since both the survey
numbers are not related to the petitioner herein, she has not
conducted the suit and the suit was decreed exparte on
14/12/2005. Taking advantage of this erroneous decree, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divional
officer, Kodaikanal against the order of the Tahsildar,
Kodaikanal in Na. Ka. 5186-04-A2 dated 24/06/06.
Page No :
7
10. The Revenue Divisional officer dismissed the
appeal of the 3rd respondent and ordered status quo. In spite
of the order, the 3rd respondent created trouble in the
absolute enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. Hence,
the petitioner had filed a civil suit before the District munsif,
Kodaikanal in O.S.No.207/2007 against the 3 rd respondent
and others and others praying for declaration of property
comprised in survey numbers 1008/7 and 1008/11 among
other numbers and the Hon’ble District munsif passed a
decree and judgment in favour of petitioner on 22.07.2013.
The order has become final and no appeal has been filed till
date against the decree and judgment.
11. Interregnum, the 3rd respondent preferred a
revision against the order of the Revenue Divisional officer in
Na. Ka. 5186-04-A2 dated 24/06/06 before the District
Revenue officer, Dindigul. The District Revenue officer vide
his order in See. Maa..(Pa. Ma) 7/2007/B4 dated
26/05/2008 has set aside the order of the Revenue
Divisonal officer in Na. Ka. 5186-04-A2 dated 24/06/06 and
allowed the revision petition.
12. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the
District Revenue officer, preferred a writ petition before the
Hon’ble Madurai Bench. The Honble High courrt, in its
order in W.P. No. 6868/2008 dated 14/08/2008, has
pleased to set aside the order of the District Revenue officer
in See. Maa..(Pa. Ma) 7/2007/B4 dated 26/05/2008 and
Page No :
8
remitted back the file to District Revenue officer for fresh
disposal.
13. As per the directions of the Hon’ble High court
given in W.P. No. 6868/08, the District Revenue officer,
Dindigul conducted a detailed enquiry giving sufficient
opportunities to all the parties and passed an order on
07/09/2009 in See. Maa..(Pa. Ma) 14/2008/B4 dated
07/09/2009 directing the subordinate officers of the
revenue department to mutate the name of the petitioner in
the patta in respect of the survey numbers 1008/7 and
1008/11 of Vilpatti village, Kodaikanal Taluk.
14. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent
having lost in the civil suit filed by him, revision petitions
filed by him and the civil suit filed by the petitioner and
having fully known the facts and, out of frustration, lodged a
complaint on 01/09/2009 before the superintendent of
police, Dindigul, the 1st respondent herein suppressing all
the facts stated above and maneuvered to get the complaint
registered in district crime branch on 01.04.2010 in crime
number 26/10 against the petitioner and others. All the
above said events occurred before the registration of the
complaint. The district crime branch even without making
preliminary enquiry and collecting credible information,
hastily registered an FIR against the petitioner fraudulently,
to convert a civil issue into a criminal issue at the behest of
the 3rd respondent for obvious reasons.
Page No :
9
15. The district crime branch after registering the
complaint held enquiry and did not proceed further as there
was no basis for the complaint to proceed further. After
several years, again the 3rd respondent influenced the 1st
respondent to transfer the case from district crime branch to
Inspector of police, Kodaikanal to re- register the FIR in
crime number 200/2017 u/s 120B, 406, 408, 409, 465,
468, 471 which is being challenged before this Hon’ble High
court.
16. The petitioner states that the petitioner has
also submitted an explanation in her letter to the second
respondent in response to his letter in MK No.
162/SI/PS/20 dated 03/09/2021 in crime number
200/2017.
17. It appears that the second respondent is
continuing the illegal investigation ignoring all the civil
issues raised by the petitioner. Hence this petition.
18. The second respondent who had registered a
false case against the petitioner and her husband
Janakiraman and others at the instance of the 3rd
respondent, did not make any preliminary enquiry and even
without perusing the explanation and the details given by
the petitioner and her husband, continued the investigation
which is illegal and is attempting the change the character
of the subject matter from civil to criminal to help the 3 rd
respondent for obvious reasons. A criminal colour has been
Page No :
10
given to a civil dispute by the 2 nd respondent and the 1st
respondent, to harass the petitioner to convey the subject
lands to the 3rd respondent. A threat of arresting the
petitioner looms large and the 3rd respondent is bent upon
to take the woman petitioner to custody and to compel her
to convey the property.
19. The offences alleged in the FIR do not satisfy
the ingredients of offences under section
120B,406,408,409,465,468 and 471 IPC. As stated above,
the subsequent enquiry of District Revenue officer, Dindigul
in See. Maa..(Pa. Ma) 14/2008/B4 dated 07/09/2009
concluded that the lands comprised in survey numbers
1008/7, 1008/11 and other 2 numbers of Vilpatti village are
absolutely belonged to the petitioner. The Hon’ble High
Court Madurai Bench in W.P.No.6868/2008 had also
passed an order in favour of the petitioner on 14.08.2008
holding that the survey number belonged the petitioner and
directed District Revenue officer, Dindigul to make enquiry
and effect changes in the patta in favour of the petitioner.
The District Munsif, Kodaikanal also passed a decree
against the 3rd respondent for the survey numbers 1008/7
and 1008/11 of Vilpatti village, Kodaikanal in O.S. No.
207/2007 dated 22/07/2013.
20. Hence the FIR is not valid and it is liable to be
quashed by this Hon’ble Court for the following grounds.
GROUNDS
Page No :
11
(a). The petitioner has filed this petition to prevent the abuse of
process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
(b) No offence is made out against this petitioner in the First
Information Report and the said FIR is liable to be quashed.
(c) As per First Information Report, ingredients of the alleged
offences are not made out against the petitioner and the
same is abuse of process of law.
(d) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in entirety do not make out a case against the
accused. It is relevant to note that the nature of the alleged
offence against the petitioner, the ingredients of the offences
and the averments made in the First Information Report /
Complaint did not find place against the petitioner. Hence,
the impugned First Information Report is liable to be
quashed.
(e) Before filing the First Information Report, the 2nd respondent
ought to have verified the petitioner’s explanation document
and other records and court decree.
(f) Hon’ble High Court has discretionary powers to exercise if
this Court finds that there is an abuse of process of law, as
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604,
which reads as under :
“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch.XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
Page No :
12
extraordinary power under Art.226 or the inherent
powers under sec.482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under sec.156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of sec.155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under sec.156(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
orcomplaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
Page No :
13
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
(g) This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and
ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every
High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real
and substantial justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised :
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
(h) In the case of Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v State Of Bihar &
Anr. (2024 INSC 77), the Supreme Court observed that in
appropriate cases, it is essential to protect against
unwarranted criminal prosecution and from unnecessary
trials. In this case, the Court allowed the Appeal challenging
the High Court’s Judgment that dismissed the plea to quash
FIR.
Page No :
14
(i) As per verdicts stated supra, in all probabilities, the
materials do not disclose any cognizable offence against the
petitioner and the said FIR is liable to be quashed.
(j) The respondents 1 & 2 ought to have done the preliminary
enquiry before registration of the FIR.
(k) The preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR in respect
of cases can only be done strictly as per the law laid down in
Lalitakumari’s case reported in 2014 (2) SCC Page No.1, in
cases where it is required to be ascertained whether a
cognizable offence has been committed or not and the
dictum followed in the First Information Report is liable to
be quashed against this petitioner alone.
(l) It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has filed an FIR in
the year 2010 for the offences said to have taken place in
the year 2002. The district crime Branch,Dindugul had
registered complaint given by 3rd respondent under section
406, 408,409, 468,and 471 IPC and 120B IPC. It is
respectfully submitted that the petitioner is a housewife and
she had purchased a piece of lands from the legal heirs of
late Raja Chidambaram reddiar for valuable consideration in
the year 2002 and documents was registered in the district
registrar office at Dindugul as document number
2096/2002. The Revenue authority after perusing the sale
deed and the genuinity of the transaction, issued patta in
the name of petitioner for the lands purchased by the
petitioner in SF.No.1008/7 and 1008/11 of Vilpatti village
Kodaikanal, but the complaint of forgery, criminal
Page No :
15
misappropriation and conspiracy has been given only in the
year 2010.
(m) It is submitted that for all the offences stated in the FIR, the
maximum punishment provided under the statue is 7 years.
Section 409 of IPC has no relevance the case. The FIR has
been filed after the lapse of 8 years from the alleged
occurance of the offence. Hence the FIR has been filed
beyond limitation period for initiating proceeding under
the provision of Indian penal code and it is barred by
limitation and on the score alone the FIR filed by the
2nd respondent is liable to the quashed.
(n) It is submitted when there were civil dispute pending with
regard to the piece of land, the complaint of forgery or
cheating or misappropriation or conspiracy does not arise.
(o) It is submitted that civil dispute ought to have been resolved
through the civil court, has been given criminal colour by
lifting the penal code certain words, phrases and
implanting them in a criminal complaint. The learned
magistrate Kodaikanal have also failed to read the contents
of the FIR and without applying his mind taken cognizance
and the FIR should have been rejected at threshold to
prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. On the
ground that there is no element of criminality the honorable
supreme court have Squashed the FIR in the similar nature
Page No :
16
of case in Sachin Garg Vs state of U.P and quashed the FIR
on 30/1/2024.
(p) It Is submitted that the FIR has to be quashed and
further investigation has to be stayed by this honorable
court to prevent abuse of process of laws. There is a growing
demand or tendency among the people to convert civil
dispute into a criminal case to settle scores against the
opposite party.
(q) It is submitted that the trend of converting civil case in to
the criminal cases has been deprecated from the courts in India
and the same has been up held the Apex courts in the case of
Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs State of Bihar and another dated on
30/1/2020.
(r) It is submitted in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs state of Bihar
in the honorable apex court re iterated the principle of law
that criminal proceeding are not to be used as a shortcut
method for civil remedy. And it has become a bargaining
weapon in the hand of the litigants’ to attain a speedy
settlements or to get the desired results and the complaints are
given to intimidate people to achieve their goals of settling civil
dispute and the 3rd respondent and other respondent who had
misused and abused the process of law must be held
accountable for abusing for process of law and law courts.
Page No :
17
For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings
in pursuance of the First Information Report in Crime No.200 of
2017 dated 09.06.2017 on the file of the 1st respondent police
pending disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition and thus
render justice.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in
Crime No.200 of 2017 dated 09.06.2017 on the file of the 1st
respondent police and QUASH the same as against the petitioner’s
is concerned and pass such further or other orders, as this
Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case thus render justice.
Dated at Madurai this the day of February, 2024.
Counsel for Petitioner
Page No :
