Sowmiya v. M.S.Kadirvelu

Order dated 13.02.2023. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in impleading petition in Crl.M.P.No.20112 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

¶2The issue here is whether 2nd respondent P.R.Sowmiya is the de-facto complainant or petitioner in the impleading petition G.Sowmiya is the de-facto complainant. Page No.22 of 32

¶3This court, when the matter was taken on 06.02.2023 directed the petitioner in impleading petition and 2nd respondent to produce documents like identity cards, Aadhar Card, Voter ID, Ration Card etc., to establish their identity. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) was also instructed to verify the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner in impleading petition and the 2nd respondent. In pursuance to that, status report is filed today, wherein it is stated that one Jovita Rajesh claims to be the daughter of impleading petitioner gave a statement that her mother's name is not Sowmiya and her father's name is Fathima Raj. Her mother was kept under the custody of one Akila and Raman and she is doing what is directed to her by them. Because of her old age, she acts as directed by Akila and Raman without realizing what she was doing. Her mother's name is Christy Raj.

¶4This Court enquired second respondent P.R.Sowmiya as to the date of her marriage, place of marriage, place of residence, date of death of Gnanashanmugam, she answered that her marriage with Gnanashanmugam was celebrated at Vadapalani Kovil on 18.03.1980 and it was a love marriage, they were living at Page No.23 of 32 No.12, T.P.Kovil Lane, Triplicane, Ice House, Police Quarters and after marriage they were living at No.12, Kodambakkam Bharadeeshwarar Colony and Gnanashanmugam died in 1993. When this Court asked whether she has any proof for her residence, she answered that documents had been lost and no complaint in this regard was given to the police. She stated that no photo was taken with Gnanashanmugam and her marriage with Gnanashanmugam was not registered.

¶5Both the parties i.e., impleading petitioner and 2nd respondent filed a copy of the Aadhar card bearing No.7442 7782 3020. Though the number of the Aadhar card is identical, the photos are different. The status report shows that both Sowmiya's were directed to appear before the E-Seva centre for verification of genuineness of the Aadhar Card. The impleading petitioner G.Sowmiya declined to appear for verification. The 2nd respondent's fingerprint was authenticated during the verification and validated. Therefore, the respondent police has filed a status report stating that Aadhar card provided by G.Sowmiya is a fabricated Aadhar card. Page No.24 of 32

¶6This status report is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impleading petition stating that police is not authorized to conduct such verification. It is only the Government of India, which can say anything about the genuineness of the Aadhar card. In absence of a report from the Government of India, we cannot act on the status report filed by the respondent police. His further submission is that all original documents of the properties concerned in the criminal case are under the custody of the impleading petitioner.

¶7In light of the submissions made, this court directs the impleading petitioner and the 2nd respondent to file an affidavit along with the self attested coloured xerox copies of whatever documents they are in possession in support of their claim. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022, if needed, can produce additional documents in support of his claim that petitioner is the brother of Gnanashanmugam.

¶8Post on 21.02.2023. Page No.25 of 32 Order dated 21.02.2023: Today, petitioner in impleading petition is present before this Court. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) produced photographs and ration card of the impleading petitioner. When this Court asked the petitioner in impleading petition about the photograph, she said that the man who is captured in the photograph is the person with whom she lives now. His name is Fathima Kulandhai Raj. Other two persons are the daughter in law and son of Fathima Kulandhai Raj. She further stated that from 1993 to till now she is living with Fathima Kulandhai Raj as husband and wife in Coimbatore. She again stated that she was living with Fathima Kulandhai Raj at Perumal Nagar, Kovaipudur from 1997 till 2013. She retracted this statement and stated that till now she is living as wife of Fathima Kulandhai Raj in Coimbatore. She also stated that she has no children through Fathima Kulandhai Raj.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Today, as directed, the learned counsel for the impleading petitioner filed colour xerox of the title deeds in support of impleading petitioner's claim that she is the owner of the property in dispute. From the documents produced, this Court finds that a sale deed was executed by Page No.26 of 32 G.Nandakumar in favour of Gnanashanmugam in document No.1664 of 1973. Both impleading petitioner and the second respondent produced the original of the sale deed. This Court fails to understand as to how it is possible to have two original sale deeds in respect of a single property. That apart, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022 that both sale deeds produced are forged and fabricated sale deeds. The real and original sale deed is in the custody of Chennai Metropolitan Building Society. In support of his submission, he stated that the vendor Nandakumar has not affixed his thumb impression in the Register meant for registration of sale deeds. A copy of the thumb impression register is also produced for the perusal of this Court. This Court is of the view that this aspect has to be deeply investigated by the respondent police.

3.When this matter is heard, it is brought to the notice of this Court that one more impleading petition in Crl.M.P.No.2616 of 2023 is filed by K.Arjunan, President, AGS Colony, Residents Welfare Association Perungalathur, West Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. This petition is likely to be listed tomorrow. Therefore, post the matters on

22.02.2023 and also Crl.M.P.No.2616 of 2023 for further hearing at

2.15 P.M. Page No.27 of 32 Order dated 22.02.2023: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the impleading petitions and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). At request of the learned counsel for the petitioner in main petition, post the matters on 24.02.2023 at 2.15 p.m. for continuation. Order dated 24.02.2023 When the matter is taken up, Mr.P.Sivamani, learned counsel for the Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., is present before this Court. He stated that he was informed by the impleading petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2616 of 2023 that proceedings are going on before this Court with regard to purchase of the property by Gnanashanmugam from Nandakumar. It is now claimed by Mr.P.Sivamani that the Society purchased the property purchased by Gnanashanmugam from Nandakumar. The original sale deed in favour of Gnanashanmugam is also produced for the perusal of this Court. As of now, we have three original sale deeds in respect of the same property said to have been executed by Nandakumar in favour of Gnanashanmugam. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Chennai Page No.28 of 32 Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., is absolutely a necessary party for adjudication of these matters and this Court suo motu impleads the Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., No.50, Ritherdon Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007 as respondent in these petitions.

2.Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in these petitions and post the matter on 01.03.2023 at 2.15 p.m. for completing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

22.From the abovesaid minutes, it is apparent that impleading petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.20112 of 2022 is now living with Fathima Kulandhai Raj. Records produced clearly show that only on the basis of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3038 of 2015, FIR in Crime No.448 of 2015, for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC r/w 120 (B) IPC came to be registered. Investigation is completed, final report is filed and the matter is pending for trial. Impleading petitioner had joined in mid way and claims herself as Page No.29 of 32 wife/concubine of Gnanashanmugham. It is apparent that some persons with vested interest are behind both Sowmiya's and both are dancing to the tunes of their handlers. As indicated earlier, there are three original sale deeds bearing same sale deed number for the same property executed between the same persons. There is a contradiction with regard to the date of the death of Gnanashanmugham as claimed by both Sowmiyas and petitioner Kadirvelu, who claims as the brother of Gnanashanmugham. All these factors have to be necessarily investigated as indicate above. For the limited purpose of further investigation to unravel the truth, this Court allows both the impleading petitions. Therefore, Registry is directed to implead the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.20112 of 2022 as fourth respondent and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2616 of 2023 as fifth respondent in the quash petition.

23.Considering the vexatious and complicated issues involved in this case, this Court deems it fit that this case should be further investigated by a Special Team to be formed by the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID. The Additional Director General of Police, Page No.30 of 32 CBCID is directed to constitute a special team consisting of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police and necessary other police officials for the purpose of further investigation of this case. After the completion of the investigation, the investigation officer should file additional/supplementary final report before the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate for further necessary action. As already indicated, out of the three sale deeds, two must be forged and fabricated sale deeds. Out of the two Sowmiya, both may be fictitious/dubious persons or one of them may be fictitious/dubious person. Whatsoever may be the case, necessary legal action must be taken against the persons who had forged and fabricated the sale deed and impersonated as Sowmiya by adding them as accused in this case.

24.Post the matter after one month for reporting compliance. sli

10.04.2023 Page No.31 of 32 Crl.M.P.Nos.20112oofo2022o&o2616oofo2023oinoCrl.O.P.No.15821oofo2022 Go .CHANDRASEKHARANo,ooJ.o sli Pre-DeliveryoOrderoin Crl.M.P.Nos.20112oofo2022o&o2616oofo2023 in Crl.O.P.No.15821oofo2022

10.04.2023 PageoNo.32oofo32

Crl.M.P.Nos.20112 of 2022 & 2616 of 2023 in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022 Reserved on 01.03.2023 Pronounced on 10.04.2023 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN , J. Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022 is filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.68 of 2022, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases – II, Allikulam, Egmore and quash the same. 2.Crl.M.P.No.20112 of 2022 is filed to pass an order impleading petitioner/proposed third respondent herein as third respondent in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022. 3.Crl.M.P.No.2616 of 2023 is filed to implead petitioner/proposed third respondent as one of the respondents in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.8881 of 2022. Page No.1 of 32 4.The brief facts of the case are as follows: One Tmt.Sowmiya, W/o.Late.Gnanashanmugam, No.48/76, Rail Nagar, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045, filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3038 of 2015 for registration of complaint. On the basis of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3038 of 2015, dated 27.08.2014, Central Crime Branch registered FIR in Crime No.448 of 2015, for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC r/w 120 (B) IPC against one M.S.Kadirvelu and others. The allegations made in the complaint are that, the land in S.No.405/3, measuring 5.9 acres, at Perungalathur Village, originally belonged to one Kannaiyan S/o.Vellaiyan. One Padmaachariyar purchased this property from Kannaiyan on 11.08.1943 through document No.1861 of 1943. The property in S.No.400, measuring 6.56 acres, at Perungalathur Village, originally belonged to one Ponnusamy and his legal heirs. Padmaachariyar purchased this property on 16.08.1943, in document No.1890 of 1943. Padmaachariyar and his sons, namely, C.P.Vasudevan and C.P.Rangarajan executed power of attorney deed in favour of Tmt.Jayalakshmi Ammal in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, Page No.2 of 32 vide document Nos.108 of 1955, 42 of 1955 & 65 of 1955. Jayalakshmi Ammal sold these properties to Nandakumar i.e., 'A' schedule property was sold to him through document No.2954 of 1955 and 'B' schedule property was sold to him through document No.2955 of 1955. These sale deeds were registered in the Sub Registrar Office at Chengalpattu. Nandakumar sold 'A' and 'B' schedule properties to the complainant's husband Gnanashanmugham S/o.Saravanapillai through document No.1664 of 1973. This sale deed was registered in the Sub Registrar Office at Tambaram. Gnanashanmugham died on 27.12.1993. After the death of Gnanashanmugham, complainant settled at Bangalore for several years. Accused M.S.Kadirvelu fabricated, forged the sale deed in document No.1664 of 1973 and got the sale deed executed in his favour in document No.3372 of 1980. Based on the sale deed in his favour, M.S.Kadirvelu sold the property to third parties. Therefore, she gave the complaint. 5.After investigation, first respondent filed a final report against the accused M.S.Kadirvelu and the person, who impersonated as Page No.3 of 32 Gnanashanmugham, for the offences under Sections 120 B, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. This case was taken on file in C.C.No.68 of 2022, by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases – II, Allikulam, Egmore. Challenging the final report, first accused M.S.Kadirvelu, filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022 to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.68 of 2022, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases – II, Allikulam, Egmore and quash the same. During the pendency of the proceedings, Crl.M.P.No.10207 of 2022 for impleading the defacto complainant, namely, Tmt.Sowmiya as second respondent in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.8881 & 8885 of 2022 was filed. That petition was allowed on 19.07.2022 and the defacto complainant, namely, Tmt.Sowmiya was impleaded as second respondent in Crl.O.P.No.15821 of 2022. 6.One Mrs.Sowmiya (Petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.20112 of 2022) claiming h