The criminal revision has been filed against the order dismissing the petitioner's complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be a political party functionary, filed a complaint before the Court below, alleging that an extent of 2.509 hectares of land in Survey Nos.548A and 549A Part, of Vellalur Village Panchayat was approved by the council, while approving the layout, 10% area has been reserved for public purpose. Subsequently, one EL GI Public Welfare Trust executed a lease agreement in favour of one EL GI Matriculation School for the purpose of constructing a school building in the above site, which is in total violation of the Development and Control Rules, and that they have no right to enter into a lease agreement, thereby, they have committed a crime. The Court below, dismissed the application, holding that the above area reserved for the public purpose has been given by way of gift to the Trust in the year 1984, and now the land has been leased out by the Trust to run a School and that there is no allegation creating a false or forged document, and no prima- facie case is made out by the petitioner to proceed with the complaint. Now, challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and Mr.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the area is reserved for the public purpose, the trust cannot lease out the same to any third party, and they have no right in the area, which has been reserved for public purpose, it can be utilized only for such public purpose, nobody can claim any right over the same. The promoters after having created forged documents entered into a lease agreement thereby they committed offence of forgery and cheating.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the entire extent of area developed by the original promoter has been purchased by the employees of EL GI Welfare Trust, formed by the employees of the EL GI Group of Companies, and the original promoter also executed a gift deed in their favour in the year 1984 itself, and now the Trust only leased out the land to an educational agency run by the very same employees of the EL GI Group of Companies, to run a matriculation school thereon and there was no alienation of property and it was only a lease agreement to run a school, which is also for a public purpose, and hence, there is no criminal intention on the part of the second respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. Admittedly, while promoting the land, a particular extent of land has been ear-marked for public purpose and now the employees who have purchased the house-sites formed a Trust. Further, according to the second respondent, the original promoter also executed a Gift Deed in their favour and on the strength of the same, they have now entered into a lease agreement with an educational agency formed by the employees of EL GI Group of Companies only for the purpose to establish and run a matriculation school thereon. Whether the original owner had right to execute any Gift Deed in favour of third parties or not, is totally a different issue. Now the issue is whether the second respondent had any mens rea to commit the alleged offence. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the Trust only entered into the lease agreement with the Educational Agency run by the employees of the very same Company, that too, only for the purpose running a matriculation school thereon. Such act of the second respondent cannot be held as an offence, and this Court does not find any mens rea on the part of the petitioner to commit any crime.
8. In the above circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below. The revision is, therefore, devoid of merits http://www.judis.nic.in and the same deserves only dismissal.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
14.06.2017 r n s Index : yes/no Internet: Yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order To
1. The Inspector of Police, B-13, Podanur (Crime) Police Station, Coimbatore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
r n s Crl. Revision Case No.604 of 2015 http://www.judis.nic.in 14.06.2017