This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records in C.C.No.29 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli and quash the same.
2.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner along with three other accused were charge sheeted for the offences under
Sections 419,465,467,468,471 and
420 read with 109 of I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that under the Government Free Patta Scheme, the land situated at S.No.817/3 Konganthanparai, Tirunelveli District measuring about three acres was given to the second respondent under patta No.1691 and the land measuring about 2.84 acres in S.No.817/4 was given to one Esakki. On seeing the land in 2008, the second respondent came to understand that the said properties have been sold and on enquiry, he came to know that the petitioner along with other accused conspired and fabricated the sale deed by impersonating the second respondent and one Esakki by putting their signatures on the sale deeds in order to grab the properties.
3.The petitioner is only an innocent purchaser and Esakki has not given any complaint. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. With respect to the subject matter, civil suit is pending and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioner are to be quashed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not even signed in the sale deed and she was not present at the time of execution of the sale deed and there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and therefore, it is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, he wants the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.29 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli are to be quashed.
5.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) interalia contends that as per the statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer, offences as against the petitioner are made out and the Judicial Magistrate, after going through the entire materials filed along with the charge sheet, took cognizance of the offences, after getting satisfied himself. Therefore, the criminal original petition is to be dismissed.
6.The learned counsel for the second respondent also reiterates the same contention as put forth by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side).
7.The case of the prosecution is that land in S.No.87/3, measuring about three acres in Konganthanparai village and land to the extent of 2.84 acres in S.F.No.817/4 in the same village were given to the second respondent and one Esakki under the Government Free Patta Scheme, as per the RDO proceedings dated 30.03.1993. The above said lands were sold to the petitioner under the sale deed dated 19.09.2000. She in turn sold the property under the sale deed dated 10.07.2001. The sale deed dated 19.09.2000 in favour of the petitioner is alleged to have been forged with impersonation. After getting the opinion of the finger print expert as to the document and after examination of witnesses, charge sheet has been laid arraying the petitioner, who purchased the property and resold it within a year, as an accused.
8.The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not present at the time of execution of the sale deed and she never put his signature in the sale deed and she is only an innocent purchaser. The statement of witnesses disclose that the petitioner's husband was working as Village Administrative Officer in the village, where the property is situate and therefore, the petitioner along with the other accused conspired and committed the crime.
9.It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner, being the wife of that Village Administrative Officer of the village where the property is situate, is aware of the persons and the fraud. From the materials available on record, offences as alleged by the prosecution are made out and the same can be established by the prosecution only during trial.
10.Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is about the delay in lodging the complaint. Though the forged sale was executed in 2001, the complaint was lodged in 2008. From the materials placed along with the charge sheet, it can be discerned that complaint was lodged immediately after knowing about the fraudulent sale of the land.
11.Yet another contention is that Esakki, whose land has also been fraudulently transferred, has not given complaint. Complaint need not be obtained from each and every aggrieved person. To set the law in motion, one complaint is suffice and statement of Esakki is found recorded by the investigating officer in this case and therefore, the above contention is not sustainable.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that civil suit pending with respect to the transfer. But, the counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the trial Court, wherein, the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
13.For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not see any reason to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in this case.
14.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.29 of 2010, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.