logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2895 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Crl. O.P. No. 8954 of 2026 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 6354, 6355 & 7429 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Parties : Mahindra World City Developers Limited (formerly known as Mahindra Industrial Park Limited), Represented by its Authorised Signatory, T. Vijayakumar, Chennai Versus State Rep. by its, The Sub-Inspector of Police, DCB, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kancheepuram & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R. John Sathyan, Senior Counsel, M.S. Seshadri, Advocate. For the Respondents R1, R. Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), R2 to R8, K. Gandhikumar, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 27-04-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in C.C.No.251 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – II, Chengalpet and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner/A9 in C.C.No.251 of 2020 facing trial for offence under Sections 120(b), 465, 468 & 471 IPC before the learned learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet (trial Court), filed this Criminal Original Petition.

2. Since the defacto complainant Raji died on 17.09.2019, his legal heirs filed impleading petition in Crl.M.P.No.7429 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.8954 of 2026 to implead themselves as R2 to R8. Accordingly, the same is ordered.

3. Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Raji, S/o.Kanthappa Naicker lodged a complaint on 10.10.2013 and case in Crime No.83 of 2013 registered. The complaint is that the defacto complainant inherited the property situated at Veerapuram, Madura Malaiyampakkam. This property devolved from defacto complainant’s forefathers and divided among defacto complainant’s father and father’s siblings by way of Koorchit on 22.07.1939. Thereafter, the property devolved on defacto complainant and his brother Munusamy and the property in survey No.118/4C of 5 cents in patta No.161 stood in their name and they were in possession and enjoyment. This being so, A1 to A6 viz., Authikesavan, Balakrishnan, Radhakrishnan, Sekar, Maheswari and Sundari, having adjacent land, created forged documents and sold it to Natarajan/A7 vide document No.3409 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998. Natarajan/A7 executed a power of attorney in document No.364 of 1999 dated 28.10.1999 in favour of M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A8 to sell the subject property. Based on the power, A8 sold the subject property to the petitioner/A9 vide document No.540 of 2000 dated 18.02.2000.

4. The defacto complainant lodged complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 05.03.2012 and CSR.No.488 of 2011 assigned by Taluk Police Station, Chengalpet. Since no action taken, the petitioner filed direction petition before this Court, later a case in Crime No.83 of 2013 registered on 10.10.2013. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed on 08.11.2019 and taken on file on 07.09.2020 in C.C.No.251 of 2020 against nine persons listing eight witnesses and documents.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A9 submitted that the petitioner/A9 viz., M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited (formerly known as Mahindra Industrial Park Limited) in partnership with TIDCO, a fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu enterprises was in the process of setting up Industrial Park in Chengalpet and in furtherance to the same, acquired large extent of land. Natarajan/A7 represented that he had clear title to the subject property and willing to sell the same to the petitioner/A9 for valid consideration. The petitioner/A9 proceeded to purchase the subject property by way of document No.540 of 2000 registered in Sub Registrar Office, Chengalpet. Natarajan/A7 through his power agent viz., M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A8 executed sale deed (document No.540 of 2000 dated 18.02.2000) in favour of the petitioner/A9 for valid consideration. The petitioner/A9 took possession of the property and started world class Industrial Park in the area and subject property forms integral part of SEZ titled Mahindra World City.

6. He further submitted that the defacto complainant not made out any case against the petitioner/A9 with respect to forgery or use of forged documents. In the charge sheet, the petitioner/A9 shown as Krishnakumar, representing M/s.Mahindra Industrial Park Limited. M/s.Mahindra Industrial Park never employed any person named Krishnakumar. Further M/s.Mahindra Industrial Park changed its name to M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited. The petitioner/A9 was informed about the case only on 17.09.2019. Be that as it may, now the defacto complainant died, his legal heirs impleaded as /R2 to R8. Now they came forward, resolved the issue and agreed to receive alternate property in lieu of the subjct property. In this regard, the petitioner/A9 and defacto complainant’s legal heirs entered into joint affidavit of compromise and memo of compromise, both produced. Hence, he sought for quashing the proceedings.

7. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that on the complaint of defacto complainant, case in Crime No.83 of 2013 registered, on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the trial Court listing LW1 to LW8 and documents. LW1 is the defacto complainant and LW2 is his son. LW3 and LW4 are witnesses for arrest of A1 on 17.07.2014. On his arrest, A1 confessed that he along with his family members sold the property to Natarajan/A7 vide document No.3409 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998. Then, Natarajan/A7 executed power of attorney in favour of M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A8 vide document No.364 of 1999 on 28.10.1999. In the power of attorney, inherited property of A1 was authorized to be sold, including the property of the defacto complainant in survey No.118/4C of 0.5 cents thereafter. M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A8 sold the property to petitioner/A9 in document No.540 of 2000 on 18.02.2000. LW5 the Village Administrative Officer confirms the property stands in the name of the petitioner/A9. LW6 the Sub Registrar confirms registration of the power of attorney in document No.364 of 1999 by A1, M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A8 sold the land to the petitioner/A9 in document No.540 of 2000 including survey No.118/4C, produced certified copies of the documents. LW7 the Sub Inspector of Police registered FIR and LW8 the Investigation Officer completed the investigation and filed charge sheet in this case.

8. He further submitted that the issue between the petitioner/A9 and legal heirs of defacto complainant (R2 to R8) resolved now. The legal heirs of defacto complainant produced the legal heir certificate, joint affidavit of compromise and memo of compromise to the 1st respondent Police.

9. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the vendor to the petitioner’s vendor/A1 inherited property situated at Veerapuram, Madura Malaiyampakkam. Likewise, the defacto complainant also inherited the property from his forefathers. The property in survey No.118/4C belongs to the defacto complainant, sold by A1 to Natarajan/A7. Natarajan/A7 executed power of attorney in favour of M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A8 who in turn sold the property to the petitioner/A9.

10. Be that as it may, the issue between defacto complainant’s legal heirs (R2 to R8) and petitioner/A9 now resolved. The defacto complainant’s legal heirs (R2 to R8) agreed to receive alternate land from the petitioner/A9 in lieu of the subject property.

11. From the memorandum of compromise, it is seen that Item No.2 in Schedule-A is the disputed property. In lieu of the same, Schedule-B three properties settled to the legal heirs of the defacto complainant. The documents for alternate properties submitted for registration with the Joint Registrar-II, Chengalpet and kept as pending document on 08.04.2026.

12. Scanned reproduction of (i)legal heir certificate dated 21.06.2022 (ii)Memo of Compromise dated 07.04.2026, (iii)Joint Affidavit of Compromise dated 17.04.2026 and (iv)Receipts for registration of alternate properties, are as follows:































13. Today the petitioner and R2 to A8 appeared before this Court and their identity confirmed by Ms.B.Jayachithra, Special Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent Police Station. This Court had interaction with R2 to R8, all who confirmed the settlement arrived with the petitioner by getting alternate property in lieu of the disputed property.

14. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641- (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl (10), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is inclined to quash the proceedings.

15. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.251 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet is quashed against the petitioner and against all other accuse who are similarly placed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.Nos.6354 & 6355 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.8954 of 2026 are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal