JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P. (MD) No.17171 of 2022 & Crl.M.P. (MD) Nos.11588 and 11589 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

ORDERS RESERVED ON : 28.10.2024

ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 26.11.2024

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.O.P. (MD) No.17171 of 2022
& Crl.M.P. (MD) Nos.11588 and 11589 of 2022
& 9847 of 2024

R.Manikandan … Petitioner
Vs.

1.State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police
Vasudevanallur Police Station
Vasudevanallur
Tirunelveli District
(In Crime No.330 of 2020)

2.Kajamohaideen … Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the case in impugned charge sheet in P.R.C.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, in Crime No.330 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Manikandan, Party-in-Person
For the Respondents : Ms.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

A. The Petition:
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the final report in P.R.C.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagiri, for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 353, 506 (1) and 379 of IPC.

B. The Case of the Prosecution:
2. The case of the prosecution as per the first information report and as per the final report is that L.W.1 –Kajamohaideen, was functioning as the Village Administrative Officer; L.W.2 – Seevil Pandian, was functioning as the Village Assistant and L.W.3 –Muthukumar was functioning as Revenue Inspector, at the relevant point of time. While so, within the boundaries of Sankanaperi Village, in the outskirts of Nitchobanathi River, in Survey Nos.4/1, 11/2, 38/2, 93/1 and near the same in Survey Nos.11/1A, 11/131 and in Nerkattumseval Village, in Survey Nos.260/3A, 179/3, 198/1A, there was unclaimed 52 units of river sand which was stocked. Upon learning about the same, Revenue Tahsildar, Sivagiri, fixed the price and auctioned it. In the auction, one Maridurai, son of Muthupandian belonging to the Nerkattumseval Village became the successful bidder and permission was granted to him to utilize the river sand from 10.08.2020 to 15.08.2020.

2.1 The petitioner herein, though unconnected with the above-mentioned incident, is alleged to have stocked river sand, on the barren land belonging to one Rangarajan in Survey Nos. 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, and 5/6, for his personal benefit, by illegally extracting it from the river poramboke and patta lands. Upon receiving a complaint from the public through L.W’s.1 to 3, attempted to transport the sand to the Taluk Office on 12.08.2020. However, at about 09.30 am., the petitioner – Manikandan confronted L.W’s.1 to 3 and falsely claimed that he had got an order of seizure pass and scolded them in filthy language as to how they could attempt to take away the said sand and prevented L.W’s.1 to 3 from performing their official duties. Hence, the final report under Sections 294 (b), 353, 506 (1) and 379 of IPC was filed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.

C. The Back Ground As Per the Petitioner:
3. As per the petitioner, in Sankanaperi Village, Survey Nos.4/1, 11/2, 38/2, 93/1, in Survey Nos.11/1A, 11/131 and also in Nerkattumseval Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Survey Nos.260/3A, 179/3, 198/1A, which are the patta lands, 52 units of river sand was found to be accumulated and stocked illegally. Upon enquiry, nobody claimed ownership of the said mineral. Therefore, it was decided to auction the said 52 units of river sand.

3.1 On 24.07.2020, one Maridurai, son of Muthupandian became the successful bidder in the auction and the sand was allotted to him with a direction to deposit a sum of Rs.18,480/-. An order thereof to issue trip sheets for removal of the river sand, in favour of the said Maridurai, son of Muthupandian was also passed on 08.08.2020 bearing Na.Ka.No.A3/12577/2011. Thereafter, on 25.08.2020, the said Maridurai had submitted a representation to all the authorities through registered post, complaining that after participating in the auction and depositing a sum of Rs.18,480/-, when he went to the spot, found that no river sand was available. Therefore, he challenged the authorities that he would go to Court unless the 52 units of river sand were handed over to him.

3.2 Fearing that he will go to Court, on 12.08.2020 a case in Crime No.330 of 2020 was registered against one Manikandan, under Sections 294 (b), 353, 506 (1) and 379 of IPC, as if he had illegally indulged in sand mining. In the said FIR, it has been stated that one Muthupandi was the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the Revenue Tahsildar, Sivagiri. In the meanwhile, the petitioner – Manikandan also sent a representation to all the higher officials in the police department on 17.08.2020, stating that he is an activist, who whistle blows concerning illegal encroachments. Merely because, he made an allegation against one Thangapazham, regarding the encroachment in ‘Odai poramboke’ land and building his educational institutions over the same, his name also falsely implicated in the present Crime No.330 of 2020, upon the influence of Thangapazham.

3.3 However, the authorities fearing backlash, stuck to a compromise with the said Maridurai, and proceeded to tamper with the first information report itself and have filed a completely false final report, hence this petition.

D.The Submissions:
4. According to the petitioner, the entire case is a false prosecution, solely because, he is an activist, who has given petitions as against one Thangapazham, who has built his educational institutions by encroaching on the ‘Odai poramboke’ land. In this case, there are two different First Information Reports for the same Crime Number and two different complaints. The petitioner had obtained the copies of same and produced it before this Court.

4.1 In one FIR, the name of the two accused persons were mentioned. The petitioner was shown as the first accused and one Maridurai, son of Muthupandian was shown as the second accused. There is another FIR in the same Crime No.330 of 2020, which mentions only the name of the petitioner Manikandan as an accused. He would therefore, submit that the entire case is a false prosecution and an abuse of process of law, intended to frame him.

E. The Respondent’s Version:
5. Upon the arguments made by the Party-in-Person, this Court specifically directed, why there were two FIRs in the same Crime No.330 of 2020 and directed the respondent police to file their counter affidavit explaining the position.

5.1 The person who had originally registered the FIR has not filed an affidavit, but a counter affidavit is filed by the present Inspector of Police – Ms C.Kanmani, wherein in paragraph No.6, it has been stated as follows:-
“6.I respectfully state that while the facts are being so, the Petitioner/Sole Accused illegally produced the unauthorized preview copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.330 of 2020 which was obtained by him in an illegal manner before this Hon’ble Court. The Preview copy of FIR is meant for carrying out corrections. The Typist who typed the FIR wrongly typed Maridurai as 2nd Accused. The said Maridurai is none other than the Father of Muthupandi to whom the seizure Order was given by the Public Welfare Department. Hence, while verifying the preview copy of FIR, the then Inspector of Police deleted the name of Maridurai and directed the Typist to freeze the FIR against the Petitioner since he is the sole accused committed theft of Sand from Tharisu Lands, nearby river shore Porambokku Lands and from Patta Land and stored the same in the Sanganaperi Village in Survey Nos.5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/6 without any proper permission from the Public Welfare Department and illegally stored them in another place. The petitioner / Sole Accused got the above said Preview copy of FIR through illegal manner with the help of police person from the respondent police Station. The preview copy of FIR is not a Public Document and it cannot be termed as second FIR or additional FIR rather it is a copy made before the process of registration of FIR.”
(emphasis supplied)
5.2 Thus, it can be seen that it is the case of the prosecution that the FIR produced by the petitioner / Party-in-person is indeed not a forged one or an incorrect one, but it is a preview copy. Even before final corrections are made and the final printout is taken, this preview copy which is printed out has been illegally obtained by the petitioner and produced before this Court. The typist has wrongly typed the name of the second accused in the FIR. It was corrected and thereafter, the corrected FIR was printed out.

F.The Discussion & Findings:
6. But the above version of the respondent-Police is a false story, and the following are the shocking facts that stare at them:
(i) Firstly, the alleged correct copy of the FIR in Crime No.330 of 2020 though is dated 12.08.2020 was received by the learned Magistrate only on 19.08.2020, after 7 days, especially when the petitioner herein had made a representation to all the higher official authorities on 17.08.2020 itself.
(ii) The respondent-Police is trying to hoodwink the Court by mentioning as if the typist wrongly typed the name of Maridurai as the second accused. However, not only the different versions of the FIR are produced before this Court, but two different versions of the complaint given by Kajamohaideen, Village Administrative Officer (L.W.1) are produced before this Court. The contents of both the FIRs differ. For easy appreciation, both the FIRs are typed in the form of tabular column for comparison and the same read as follows:-
First FIR Second FIR
,d;W 12/08/2020 Mk; njjp 21/30 kzpf;F thRnjtey;Yhh; fhty; epiya rpwg;g[ Ma;thsh; 1621 C.kfhyp’;fk; Mfpa ehd; epiya bghWg;gpy; ,Uf;Fk; nghJ rptfphp tl;lk; r’;fdhnghp fpuhkk;. fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; K/fh$hKifjPd; vd;gth; epiyak; M$uhfp bfhLj;j g[fhh; kDit bgw;W ghh;itapl;L mjd; jd;ikf;nfw;g thRnjtey;Yhh; fhty;epiya Fw;w vz;/330/2020 u/s 294(b), 353, 506 (i), 379 IPC (sand theft)Mf tHf;F gjpt[ bra;njd;/ g[fhh; kD gpd;tUkhW. mDg;g[eh;. K/fh$hKifjPd; fpuhk epUthf mYtyh;. r’;fdhg;nghp fpuhkk; rptfphp tl;lk; bry :9965289457 bgWeh; fhty; Ma;thsh; mth;fs;. thRnjtey;Yhh; fhty; epiyak;. thRnjtey;Yhh;/ Iah. ehd; r’;fdhg;nghp fpuhkj;jpy; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyuhf gzpg[hpe;J tUfpnwd;/ e/f/M3/12577/2011 ehs;/08/08/2020d; go bey;fl;Lk; brty; fpuhkj;ijr; nrh;e;j K/khhpKj;J j/bg/Kj;Jg;ghz;oad; vd;gtUf;F g[y vz;fs;/206/3A, 179/3. 198/1 y; chpik nfhug;glhj seizer kzy; 52 a{dpl;fs; kziy mg;g[wg;gLj;Jtjw;F mDkjp bgw;Ws;shh;/ Mdhy; nkw;fz;l egh; bgw;Ws;s seizer kzy mDkjp cj;juit bgw;Wf;bfhz;L uh/kzpfz;ld; j…bg/uhkh;ghz;o Kg;g[lhjp mk;kd; nfhtpy; bjU jhUfhg[uk; vd;w egh; jd; bgahpy; bgw;Ws;s seizer kzy; mDkjp vd;W bgw;Wf; bfhz;L seizer mDkjp bgw;Ws;s vy;iyia jhz;o ehd; gzpg[hpa[k; fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s epl;nrgjp Mw;wpd; gFjpfspYk; C g[y vz;fs; 1. 4/1. 11/2, 93/1, 38/2 nkYk; gl;lhjhuh; g[y vz;fs; 11/1A, 11/131 MfpaitfspYk; nkw;fz;l ,uz;L egh;fSk; jpUl;Lj;jdkhf kziy ms;sp vdJ fpuhkj;jpd; gl;lhjhuh; _ bu’;fuh$d; j/bg/ _jh; C g[y vz;fs;/5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/6 y; Ftpj;J itj;Js;sdh;/ gpwF gl;lhjhuh; mspj;j g[fhhpd; nghpy; rk;gtk; cs;s ,lj;jpw;F brd;W tUtha; tl;lhl;rpah; kw;Wk; tUtha; Ma;thsh; Mfpnahhpd; mwpt[Wj;jypd; nghpy; ifg;gw;wp (seizer) kziy tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;g Kw;gl;l nghJ nkw;fz;l egh; uh/kzpfz;ld; vd;gth; eh’;fs; c’;fs; fpuhkj;jpy; kzy; jpUl;Lj;jdkhf ms;stpy;iy/ ,J bey;fl;Lk;brty; fpuhkj;jpy; v’;fSf;F mDkjp bgw;Ws;s seizer kziy ,’;F Ftpj;J itj;Js;nshk; vd;W Twp vd;id nkw;bfhz;L gzp bra;atplhky; jLj;J jfhj thh;j;ijapy; jpl;o kpft[k; ,ila{W bra;J bfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;/ ehd; fhty;epiyaj;Jf;F jfty; bjhptpj;j gpd;g[ me;j egh; ,lj;ij fhyp bra;J tpl;lhh;/ gpd;g[ tl;lhl;rpahpd; mwpt[Wj;jypd; nghpy; 15 Tipper K:yk; Rkhh; 35 a{dpl;fs; tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; xg;gil bra;ag;gl;L tpl;lJ/ vdnt nkw;fz;l egh;fs; kPJ fLikahd eltof;if vLf;Fk;go j’;fis gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/(sd)(K/fh$hKifjPd;) dt 12.08.2020 Village Administrative Officer Sanganaperi Village, Sivagiri Taluk.
……………
…………… ,d;W 12/08/2020 Mk; njjp 21/30 kzpf;F thRnjtey;Yhh; fhty; epiya rpwg;g[ Ma;thsh; 1621 C.kfhyp’;fk; Mfpa ehd; epiya bghWg;gpy; ,Uf;Fk; nghJ rptfphp tl;lk; r’;fdhnghp fpuhkk;. fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; K/fh$hKifjPd; vd;gth; epiyak; M$uhfp bfhLj;j g[fhh; kDit bgw;W ghh;itapl;L mjd; jd;ikf;nfw;g thRnjtey;Yhh; fhty;epiya Fw;w vz;/330/2020 u/s 294(b), 353, 506 (i), 379 IPC (sand theft) Mf tHf;F gjpt[ bra;njd;/ g[fhh; kD gpd;tUkhW. mDg;g[eh;. K/fh$hKifjPd; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh;. r’;fdhg;nghp fpuhkk; rptfphp tl;lk; bry :9965289457 bgWeh; fhty; Ma;thsh; mth;fs;. thRnjtey;Yhh; fhty; epiyak;. thRnjtey;Yhh;/ Iah. ehd; r’;fdhg;nghp fpuhkj;jpy; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyuhf gzp bra;J tUfpnwd;/ c& fpuhkj;jpy; epl;nrhgejp Mw;Wg;g[wk;nghf;fpy; cs;s g[y vz;fs; 4/1. 11/2, 93/1, 38/2 Mfpait MFk;/ nkYk; gl;lhjhuh; g[y vz;fs; (Mw;Wf;F mUfpy;) 11/1A, 11/131 Mfpait cs;sd/ nkYk; e/f/M3/12577/2011 ehs; 08/08/2020 d; go c& tl;lk; bey;fl;Lk;brty; fpuhkk; g[yvz;fs; 260/3A, 179/3. 198/1y; chpik nfhug;glhj 52 a{dpl; kzy; Ftpj;Js;sjhf bjhptpj;J bghJg;gzpj;Jiw eph;zapj;j tpiyapd; go Vyk; tplg;gl;L me;j Vyj;ij bey;fl;Lk;brty; fpuhkj;ijr; rhh;e;j K/khhpj;Jiu j/bg/Kj;Jg;ghz;oad; vd;gtUf;F nkw;go kziy mg;g[[wg;gLj;jpf;bfhs;s 10/08/2020 Kjy; 15/08/2020 tiu fhiy 6 kzpKjy; khiy 6 kzp tiu mDkjp tH’;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; nkw;fz;l Mizf;F rk;ke;jk; ,y;yhj egh; uh/kzpfz;ld; j/bg/uhkh; gps;is Kg;g[lhjp mk;kd; nfhtpy; bjU. jhUfhg[uk; vd;w Kfthpia rhh;e;j egh; rPrh; bgw;w fpuhkj;ij jhz;oa[k; mth; bgahpy; muR K:yk;(seizer) ve;jtpjkhd Miza[k; bgwhky; mUfpy; mike;Js;s ehd; gzpg[hpa[k; rp’;fdhg;nghp fpuhkj;jpy; nkny Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Mw;Wg;g[wk;nghf;F g[yvz;fspy; cs;s kziya[k; gl;lhjhuh; epyj;jpy; cs;s epyj;jpy; cs;s kziya[k; ,ut[ neuj;jpy; jpUl;Lj;jdkhf ms;sp r’;fdhg;nghp fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s _ bu’;fuh$d; g[y vz;/5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/6 y; Ftpayhf Ftpj;J itj;Js;shh;/ nkYk; gl;lhjhuh; kw;Wk; bghJkf;fs; bfhLj;j g[fhhpd; nghpy; nkw;fz;l ,lj;jpy; jy Ma;t[ bra;jnghJ jpUl;L kzy; Ftpayhf Ftpj;J itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkYk; nkw;go eltof;iff;fhf rPrh; bra;J tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpw;F bfhz;Lbry;y tUtha; Ma;thsh; K:yk; Maj;jk; MdnghJ kz; gh!; bgw;wjw;F rk;ge;jnk ,y;yhj egh; kzpfz;ld;. j/bg/uhkh;ghz;o. JhUfhg[uk; vd;gth; jhd; bey;fl;Lk;brtypy; rPrh; (seizer) gh!; bgw;wth; vd;Wk; me;j kziy ,’;nf Ftpj;J itj;Js;nsd; vd;W vd;id fpuhk cjtpahsh; kw;Wk; tUtha; Ma;thsh; Mfpnahiu jfhj thh;j;ijfshy; jpl;o gzp bra;a tplhky; jLj;J jfuhW bra;jhh;/ vdnt c& egh; kPJ jpUl;L kzy; ms;spa tiff;F jf;f eltof;if vLf;f ntz;Lfpnwd;/ nkYk; jpUl;L kzy; ifg;gw;wg;gl;L. Njhuhakhf 35 (Kg;gj;J Ie;J) Units rptfphp tUtha; tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; xg;gilf;fg;gl;lJ/ nkw;fz;l jfty;fis Vw;W c& eghpd; kPJ fLikahd eltof;if vLf;Fk;go j’;fis gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ (sd)(K/fh$hKifjPd;) dt 12.08.2020 Village Administrative Officer Sanganaperi Village, Sivagiri Taluk.
……………
……………

6.1 Thus, the first version of the FIR, states two facts,
(i) Manikandan obtained a copy of the seizure order from the second accused – Maridurai and claimed the right to remove the river sand; (ii) On the strength of the said seizure order, both the persons had illegally quarried the river sand in Nitchobanathi river Poramboke Survey Numbers and Patta Survey Numbers. Whereas in the second version of the FIR and complaint, the first allegation is that the said Manikandan got a copy of the seizure order of Maridurai is left out and it is mentioned that unconnected to the auction, Manikandan claimed rights over the alleged river sand. The allegation that both of them have jointly illegally quarried was also now changed in the second version of FIR.

6.2 Both the duly signed photocopies of the FIRs and two versions of the complaints were produced before this Court. Therefore, it is obvious that the entire case is a false one. The counter affidavit filed stating that, it was a typing mistake to include the said Maridurai as an accused cannot be accepted as it is not the only mistake in the column for mentioning the name of the accused but the very complaints itself differ. It is trite that a person may lie but the circumstances may not. The mentioning of the first few sentences about the auction to Maridurai becomes necessary only if it is the version of the prosecution that Manikandan obtained the copy of the order from Mariduari and claimed rights and both of them illegally quarried. If unconnected to the auction episode to Maridurai, Manikandan had illegally quarried, then mentioning the whole episode about Maridurai was unnecessary, illogical and unnatural. To mention an irrelevant thing and thereafter mention that unconnected to the Maridurai episode, Manikandan quarried and stocked illegally by itself exposes the falsity of the case. Thus, it is clear that when the prosecution wanted to change the first version into a new one, they did not apply their mind in full and continued to make only cosmetic changes, which defied logic and exposed them thoroughly.

6.3 The same absurdity continued in the final report also. The entire final report filed by the Investigating Officer is extracted hereunder:-
“Fw;wr;rhl;L rl;lgphpt[ 330 / 2020 u/s: 294 (b), 353, 506 (i), 379 IPC (sand theft)
,e;j tHf;fpd; rhl;rp – 1 r’;fhdnghp fpuhk eph;thf mYtyhf gzpg[hpe;J tUfpwhh;/ rhl;rp – 2 thRnjtey;Yhh; fpuhk cjtpahsuhft[k; TLjyhf r’;fdhnghpapy; TLjy; bghWg;g[k; ghh;j;J tUfpwhh;/ mnj nghy; rhl;rp – 3 rptfphp tUtha; Ma;thsuhf ,Ue;J TLjy; bghWg;g[ r’;fdhnghpiaa[k; ghh;j;J tUfpwhh;/
,e;epiyapy; r’;fdhnghp fpuhkj;jpw;F cl;gl;l epl;nrhgejp Mw;W g[wk;nghf;fpy; g[y vz;/4/1, 11/2, 38/2, 93/1 MfpaitfspYk; nkYk; gl;lhjhuh; g[y vz;fs; Mw;Wf;F mUfpy; 11/1A, 11/131 Mfpaitfs; kw;Wk; bew;fl;Lk; brty; fpuhkk; g[yvz;:260/3A, 179/3, 198/1A y; chpik nfhug;glhj 52 a{dpl; kzy; Ftpj;Js;sjhf bjhpe;J bghJg;gzpj;Jiw eph;zapj;j tpiyapd; go Vyk; tplg;gl;L me;j Vyj;ij bew;fl;Lk;brty; Kj;Jg;ghz;of;F kziy mg;g[wg;gLj;jpf;bfhs;s 10/08/2020 Kjy; 15/08/2020 khiy 6/00 kzptiu mDkjp tH’;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; ,t;tHf;fpd; vjphp nkw;fz;l Mizf;F rk;ke;jk; ,y;yhky; r’;fdhnghp fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s bu’;fuh$d; g[yvz;.5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/6 y; jhpR epyj;jpd; kziy ve;jtpj muR mDkjpa[k; ,d;wp brhe;j Mjhaj;jpw;fhf Mw;W g[wk;nghf;fpYk; gl;lh epyj;jpYk; ,Ue;J jpUo bfhz;L te;J Ftpayhf itj;Js;shh;/ me;j Ftpay; kziy gw;wp gl;lhjhuh; kw;Wk; bghJkf;fs; bfhLj;j g[fhhpd; nghpy; rhl;rp – 1. 2. 3 rPrh; bra;J tl;lhr;rpah; mYtyfj;jpw;F bfhz;L bry;y 12/08/2020 k; njjp 09/30 kzpf;F me;j ,lj;jpy; itj;J rhl;rpfis vjphp jhd; bew;fl;Lk;brty; rPrh; gh!; bgw;wth; vd;Wk; me;j kziy ,’;F Ftpj;J itj;Js;nsd; vd;Wk; 1. 2. 3 rhl;rpfis vg;go jhnahHpfsh ,e;j kziy ms;s te;Jl;O’;f vd;W mrp’;fkhf ngrp. muR gzpia bra;atplhky; jLj;Jk;. ,’;f ,Ue;J eP’;f vg;go kz;iz ms;spl;L nghwP’;fd;D ghh;g;nghk; kziy ms;spdhy; c’;fis Rk;kh tplkhl;nld; vd;W kpul;oajhf cs;s Fw;wk; vdnt ,t;tHf;fpd; vjphp rl;lg;gphpt[ 294 (b), 353, 506 (i), 379 IPC (sand theft) go jz;of;f jf;f Fw;wk; g[hpe;jtuhfpwhh;/
Mfnt vjphp kPJ ,e;j Fw;wr;rhl;L/””

6.4 Thus it can be seen that the first four sentences do not have a proper meaning. Again, it tried to convey that the sand which was found to be unclaimed in the Survey Numbers mentioned therein was auctioned to one Muthupandi, the same is also factually wrong. It was given to Maridurai, son of Muthupandian. If the action of the petitioner – Manikandan is not connected to the auction or the seizure pass given to the said Maridurai, in the natural course of events, those facts would not have found a place, both in the FIRs and in the final report. It would have simply proceeded on the basis that in the patta land belonging to one Rangarajan in Survey Nos.5/1, 5/2, 5/3, and 5/6, the petitioner – Manikandan had illegally stocked the river sand by illegally quarrying from the river poramboke lands and patta lands. Thus, from the unimpeachable materials available before this Court, in the form of two FIRs, two complaints with the signatures of L.W.1 about the same incident and the final report, one can reach the irresistible conclusion that the case is nothing but falsehood. Accordingly, the entire final report deserves to be quashed.

6.5 This apart, prima facie it can be seen that there were 52 units of unclaimed river sand. The respondent – Police can easily investigate and find out who had illegally quarried the same. Secondly, when the unclaimed river sand was auctioned, the auction purchaser – Maridurai claimed that there was no sand, even though he had deposited the auction money and somebody had stealthily removed it and only because he challenged the authorities to go to the Court, about the same, to threaten him and since this petitioner – Manikandan who seems to be a whistle-blower, to keep him also into check, initially with the help of L.W.1 – Village Administrative Officer, a complaint has been given and the FIR is lodged and print out is also taken. However, without sending the FIR immediately to the Judicial Magistrate and taking advantage of the fact that the present FIRs are not on serial number-based sheets, but were printed out from the computer, some behind the scene negotiations and bargains appear to have taken place and the police and revenue officials seemed to have struck some compromise with Maridurai and therefore another print out is taken by getting one more ante dated different version of the complaint and the second version FIR was thereafter sent to the Court on 19.08.2020.

6.6 Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, is directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the matter and if prima facie the offence of falsification of records, forgery, false prosecution, etc., are made out against the police personnel, including the Investigating officer and those who registered both the FIRs, L.W’s.1 to 3 – the Village Administrative Officer, Village Assistant, Revenue Inspector and any other official, whomsoever is involved, register a case against them and complete the investigation and file a final report in the manner known to law.

G. The Result:
7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of on the following terms:
(i) The case in P.R.C.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagiri, shall stand quashed;
(ii) the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, shall conduct a preliminary inquiry as to the two sets of FIRs and two complaints as indicated above and if the creation of false documents and using the same as genuine, falsification of records, false prosecution and any other offence are made out against the police and revenue officials as well as any other private persons, register a case against them and investigate into the issue and file final report, in accordance with law. A set of copies of all the papers filed in this petition as well as in P.R.C. No. 25 of 2022 shall be furnished to him by the Registry as well as by the Learned Magistrate upon his request;
(iii) The preliminary enquiry shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if a prima facie case is made out, a case shall be registered and investigation shall be completed within three months from the date of registration of the case and final report be filed;
(iv) The outcome of the preliminary enquiry, as the case may be, shall be forwarded to this Court;
(v) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

26.11.2024
Jer
Neutral citation : Yes

To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Sivagiri.
2.The Superintendent of Police
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Inspector of Police
Vasudevanallur Police Station
Vasudevanallur
Tirunelveli District
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
Jer

Pre-Delivery Order made in
Crl.O.P. (MD) No.17171 of 2022

26.11.2024