Madras HC quashes criminal proceedings in Tiruvallur land grab case

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court quashed a land grabbing case against Gowshika Boopathy, who was booked for allegedly grabbing 40 acres of land in Tiruvallur by threatening the land owner with the influence of former minister (late) Veerapandi Arumugam.

A mere breach of contract is not sufficient ground to proceed with criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown against the accused at the beginning of a transaction, wrote a division bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and M Jothiraman, while quashing the pending criminal case against Boopathy.

While quashing the criminal case, the bench held that the ingredients to the contribution of cheating were not found in the complaint alleging land grab.

The dispute is of civil nature, hence it does not invoke section 420 of IPC, the bench authored. Also, the prosecution failed to establish the allegation against the accused, prompting the quashing of the case, which is pending before Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, at Poonamallee since 2019.

In 1999, the complainant T Muthu, the accused persons Boopathy and Ravi jointly bought four pieces of land, a total of 40 acres, at Tiruvallur. The complainant claimed that with an ill motive to grab the land, the two accused who are also the co-owners of the land, devised a plan and approached him to build a warehouse on the land. Without realising the trap, he executed a general power of attorney deed in favour of Boopathy, said the complainant. In 2006, the petitioner executed sale deeds of part of the lands in favour of his wife, daughters and a relative, said the petitioner. After knowing the real plan of the petitioner, he cancelled the power of attorney, despite the fact that Boopathy executed sale deeds, claimed the complainant. The petitioner also threatened the complainant, claiming to be a close associate of then minister Veerapandi Arumugam and forced him to recall the police complaint which he gave, said the complainant.

Senior counsel, R Shunmugasundaram for the petitioner, questioned the intention of the complainant and that the complaint itself is belated as the cause of action is 2006, but the complaint was registered in 2011, five years of delay. Further, the complainant cancelled the power of attorney in favour of his client, but didn't communicate the same to him, hence the criminal intention charged against the petitioner doesn’t stand, contended the senior. Since this matter comes under the purview of civil nature, the criminal proceedings should be quashed, he added.