1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD).No.625 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Velmurugan ... Petitioner (Accused -1) vs. State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent (Complainant) Crime No.35/2007) Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C to set aside the order, dated 17.06.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5082 of 2009 in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. For petitioner : Ms.S.Ragaventhre For respondent : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. Challenging the order, dated 17.06.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.5082 of 2009 in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner, who was arrayed as A1 in the aforesaid case. 3. It is seen that the case was taken on file on the complaint given by the defacto-complainant against the petitioner and four others. As per the complaint, the petitioner / A1 had sold 1 acre 59 cents of land in S.No.172/5 in Papakudi Village, Sathur Taluk on the ground that the land belonged to his father one Muthu Muruga Konar. Subsequently, the defacto- complainant approached the petitioner / A1 and raised objections stating that the property owned by his grand father having similar name. The name of the father of A1 and the grand father of the defacto-complainant are admittedly one and the same. 4. As per the prosecution case, the sale deed was executed by A1 in favour of A4 with the assistance of A2 and A3. Though the sale deed was registered on 25.05.2007 under Document No.1175 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Panthalkudi. Subsequently, it is seen that the petitioner / A1 had executed a cancellation deed, dated 26.08.2008, after the objection raised by the defacto-complainant. 5. It is not in dispute that there is no bad antecedence against the petitioner. In the complaint, the defacto-complainant had stated that A2 and A3 were also hand and glove with the petitioner / A1 in executing the sale deed. Subsequently, A4 and A5 filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10867 of 2009 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. After considering the facts and circumstances, this Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.RAJA), held that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioners, while purchasing the property from A1. With the above findings, the charge sheet filed against A4 and A5 in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar was ordered to be quashed. 7. Learned Government Advocate has not disputed the fact that the sale deed was executed in respect of the aforesaid property by the petitioner/A1 in favour of A4. 8. As per the materials available on record, the Court is of the view that it could not be construed that the petitioner / A1 has deliberately executed the sale deed in favour of A4, knowing the fact that the property belonged to the grand father of the defacto-complainant and not belonged to his father. As it is an admitted fact that the name of the father of the petitioner / A1 and the grand father of the defacto- complainant are one and the same, the petitioner could have bonafidely believed that the property belonged to his father and subsequently, he executed cancellation deed, dated 26.08.2008. 9. The order, dated 02.12.2009 passed in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10867 of 2009 would strengthen the plea of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there could be no culpability of mind on the part of the petitioner in executing the sale deed in favour of A4. 10. As per the copy of the sale deed available in the typed set, it is seen that the petitioner has stated that his father Muthu Muruga Konar owned the property, as per the sale deed, wherein the sale consideration was stated as Rs.15,105/-. 11. In view of the fact that the name of the father of the petitioner and the grand father of the defacto-complainant are one and the same and cancellation deed executed by the petitioner / A1 and also the earlier order passed by this Court referred to above, on the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there could be no culpability of mind established against the petitioner, as per the complaint given by the defacto-complainant. I am of the view that there is no prima facie case, supported by materials, so as to establish the mens rea. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent raised no tenable objections. 12. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside and the petitioner / A1 is discharged from the charges alleged against him under Sections 419, 465 and 468 IPC. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II Virudhunagar. 2. -DO- THRO The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Tsvn SR : 28.11.2011 : 3p/5c Crl.R.C.(MD).No.625 of 2011 29.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/