P. Vijay Nataraj vs The State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1448 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3826 of 2022)

P. VIJAY NATARAJ & ORS. Appellants

VERSUS

STATE & ANR. Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

10.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in

Criminal Original Petition No.9763 of 2018.

The aforesaid Criminal Original Petition was directed

against the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Principal

District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.C. No.41 of 2015.

The Revision in turn had arisen out of the rejection of

application preferred by the present appellants seeking

discharge in connection with crime registered pursuant to C.C. Signature Not Verified

No.284 of 2011 (renumbered as CC No.1524 of 2019) on the file Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2022.09.10 09:11:21 IST Reason:

of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.III, Coimbatore. 2

It was submitted in said criminal case that the present

appellants had executed two separate sale-deeds conveying

their interest in the land in question in favour of the

complainant; that though the documents were registered, it was

not brought to the notice of the complainant that there was a

reservation in respect of said land and it was subject matter

of proceedings under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and

Country Planning Act, 1971.

The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants, on

the other hand, was that the appellants were not aware of such

proceedings and therefore there was such averment in the

document of title. In any case, they had never claimed any

interest in the land after the conveyance and that the

complainant was entitled to enjoy the lands in his capacity as

a title holder.

The application for discharge was however rejected by the

Trial Court, which order was confirmed in revisional

jurisdiction by the Court of Principal District & Sessions

Judge, Coimbatore in Crl. Revision Case No.41 of 2015, which

in turn was subject matter of challenge before the High Court.

The High Court, however, rejected the challenge vide its

judgment and order which is presently under challenge. 3

In this appeal, we have heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan,

learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R. Basant,

learned Senior Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Viswanathan has brought to our notice the fact that

the appellants had approached the High Court of Judicature at

Madras by filing Writ Petition No.417 of 2022 submitting inter

alia that in view of the inaction on the part of the

authorities, the land in question stood released from

reservation/designation and that such release ought to be in

favour of the complainant. It is submitted that accepting the

submissions so made, the High Court vide its judgment and

order dated 12.01.2022 observed as under:

“8. In that view of the matter this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order:

* That the land in question owned by the petitioners in S. Nos.26/2B and 26/3 of Tudiyalur Village which was part of the land proposed for the inner ring road in the Coimbatore Master Plan under G.O. Ms. No.661, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 12.10.1994 is declared to be land released under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.

* As a sequel, the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the third respondent shall take necessary steps to release the land to and in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

* It is made clear that once the land in question is released in favour of the petitioners, since the same has already been transferred in the name of the fourth respondent, subsequently the fourth respondent shall establish and execute 4

his right over the property as the lawful owner.”

As has been observed by the High Court, the land would be

released in favour of the 4th respondent in the proceedings

before the High Court, that is to say, the complainant.

Mr. Viswanathan submits that the appellants stand by the

petition and the order passed by the High Court as stated

above. It is further submitted that in case the original

complainant so desires, the appellants are willing to return

the amount of consideration.

Considering the fact that the appellants never claimed

any interest in the land and the fact that his bona fides are

clear when he sought release in favour of 4th respondent i.e.

the complainant, in our view, the application seeking

discharge as filed by the present appellants deserves

acceptance.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and discharge the appellants

of the charges levelled against them in said C.C. No.284 of 2011

(renumbered as CC No.1524 of 2019) initiated by the complainant.

Needless to say, that consistent with the stand taken by

the appellants, it is declared that they have nothing to do

with the land in question and that the land now stands

released in favour of the complainant herein in terms of the

directions issued by the High Court in its order dated

12.01.2022.

5

With these observations, the appeal is allowed.

...............................CJI. [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

.................................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 05, 2022