Madras High Court
A.Venkatraman vs The District Registrar on 26 February, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
1.A.Venkatraman
2.A.Jeya Jothi Raja .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Rajapalayam Town,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Collectorate Complex,
Virudhunagar Town and District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3rd respondent to withdraw the letter in
C.No.26/PA/EOW/VNR/2024 dated 22.07.2024 sent to the 2nd respondent and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to entertain documents/sale deeds or
other deeds pertaining to the properties covered under release deed dated
12.11.2021 vide Doc. No.6114/2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 1 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R-3 : Mr.M.Karunanithi
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to
withdraw the letter in C.No.26/PA/EOW/VNR/2024 dated 22.07.2024 sent to
the second respondent and consequently, direct the second respondent to
entertain documents covered by the release deed vide Document No.6114/2021
dated 12.11.2021 and for consequential orders.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their father, Late.Ayyapan, married
one A.Jeyalakshmi. From the wedlock, they had two sons and two daughters.
The sons are A.Venkatraman and A.Jeya Jothi Raja, who are the petitioners
herein. The daughters are P.Pawnthai and S.Muthumari. According to the
petitioners, their father, Ayyapan, had acquired several extents of property. He
passed away on 10.09.2021. Thereafter, Tmt.Jeyalakshmi, wife of Ayyapan,
executed two settlement deeds in favour of the daughters, Pawnthai and
Muthumari. Tmt.Jeyalakshmi, the petitioners and the other sister, Pawnthai, also
executed a settlement deed in favour of Muthumari.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 2 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
3. With respect to the petitioners, Jeyalakshmi and the two sisters released
their shares, which came to their hands by virtue of the death of Ayyapan by
way of a release deed dated 12.11.2021. The petitioners have mutated the
revenue records and they claim that they are in possession of the property. They
proposed to alienate the property and applied for an encumbrance certificate for
the said purpose. It is at that time, they came to know that the third respondent
had written to the second respondent in C.No.26/PA/EOW/VNR/2024 dated
22.07.2024, calling upon the second respondent not to register any documents
pertaining to the property, whose parent documents are Document Nos.
6614/2021, 3879/2021, 3880/2021 and 1204/2011. The petitioners were
shocked to learn about this development and conducted an enquiry. It is at that
stage, they came to know of the fact that an FIR had been registered by the third
respondent in FIR No.5 of 2023 against their sister, Tmt.Muthumari, their
brother-in-law, Subramanian and four others, for the alleged offences under
Section 120B, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. The offences arise out of
collection of funds from the public for a jewellery shop, by name, Aarusha Gold
Shop at Virudhunagar.
4. The petitioners state that they are not in any way connected with the
said business and that there is no order of attachment passed either by a Judicial
Magistrate or by the Special Court constituted under the Tamil Nadu Protection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 3 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act of 1997 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘TNPID Act‘) or by the competent authority under the TNPID Act.
Hence, the second respondent cannot act on a mere letter issued by the third
respondent Police.
5. When the matter came up for admission, I directed the second and third
respondents to go on record by way of an affidavit.
6. Mr.M.Karunanithi has filed a counter affidavit of the Inspector of
Police, Economic Offence Wing, Virudhunagar District, sworn on 25th February,
2025.
7. The counter affidavit discloses that one Karuppasamy had lodged a
complaint against Aarusha Gold and Diamond Jewellery on 11.09.2023. The
counter proceeds that Karuppasamy had invested a sum of Rs.10,000/- every
month towards a gold chit scheme being run by the concern of Aarusha Gold
and Diamond Jewellery. The police acted immediately on the complaint and an
FIR came to be registered. The counter affidavit further states that there are
totally 31 accused in this case, out of which, 12 are financial establishments.
The sixth accused in that case is one Future Generation Capital Private Limited,
which was incorporated by Subramanian, the brother-in-law of the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 4 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
and Muthumari, the sister of the petitioners. The counter affidavit alleges that
the petitioners too played a day-to-day role in the affairs of the financial
establishment. It is further pleaded that the properties, which are the subject
matter of this Writ Petition, were acquired by the deceased Ayyapan from and
out of the funds that had been given by Muthumari and Subramanian and that
they are all proceeds of crime.
8. The counter affidavit further states that proposals have been sent to the
Government for attachment of the properties. According to the Inspector of
Police, the total guideline value of all the properties, which is the subject matter
of the Writ Petition, is Rs.1,84,89,443/-, whereas, the amount outstanding to the
depositors is about Rs.123 Crores. The counter affidavit states that one
Shanmuganathan and Arunachalam, purchasers of the property from
Muthumari, had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.16603 of 2024,
challenging a refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar at Aruppukottai and
that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 28.01.2025. On these
pleas, the third respondent seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
9. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader
representing the second respondent/Sub Registrar states that they have entered
the objection that has been given by the Police in the encumbrance certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 5 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
and that they are only obeying the lawful orders of the Police and have no other
role to play in the matter.
10. I heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh
Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and
Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent.
11. Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu places reliance upon three judgments of this
Court. They are,
(i) R.Madhupriya and another Vs. Inspector General of Registration
and another, 2020 SCC OnLine Madras 20112,
(ii) K.Arasu and others Vs. The Sub Registrar, Perunthurai, Erode
District and another in W.P.No.30874 of 2018 dated 28.04.2022,
(iii) Subramani Vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram and another, (2024) 3
MLJ 588.
12. Mr.M.Karunanithi cites the order passed in Shanmuganathan and
another Vs. The Joint Sub Registrar, Aruppukottai and another in W.P.
(MD).No.16603 of 2024 dated 28.01.2025, in support of his plea.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions of all sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 6 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
14. The FIR having been registered prior to 01.07.2024, Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) would not be applicable. This is
because in terms of Section 531(2) of BNSS, for any investigation, which is
pending prior to the notification of BNSS, the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of 1973 would have to be followed.
15. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, the Police had the
power to seize certain properties in terms of Section 102 of the said Code. That
power has not been exercised in the present case. As the alleged offences
include Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, the Police could have
exercised their powers under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance of
1944 and even that was not exercised in the present case.
16. The other option available to the Police was to get an order of
attachment under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of
Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act of 1997. That too, as is clear from
the counter affidavit, had not been adopted by the Police. Instead, the third
respondent has addressed a letter to the second respondent, directing the second
respondent not to register any documents pertaining to the document numbers
set forth above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 7 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
17. Whether the Police have the power to issue such letters has been a
subject matter of consideration in all the three cases cited by
Mr.Thirunavukkarasu.
17.1. The Honourable Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh in Madhupriya’s
case, had clearly held that there cannot be a direction by the Police to the
Registration Department not to register documents. He further held that in case
the Police wants to prevent a party from alienating any property, which they
suspect to be proceeds of crime, they have to approach the Court or the
competent authority under the relevant enactments and obtain orders of
attachment. Going a step further, he had held that a letter issued by the Police
should not be recorded in the encumbrance certificate, since it is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Police to restrain the owners of the property dealing with the
same.
17.2. The view expressed by Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh was yet
again echoed by the Honourable Mr.Justice V.Bharathidasan in W.P.No.30874
of 2018 dated 28.04.2022. Mr.Justice V.Bharathidasan was of the categorical
view that the Investigating Agency has no power to direct the Registrar to refuse
to register documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 8 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
17.3. Considering all these aspects in Subramani’s case, the Honourable
Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar was of the view, that the practice of the Police
officers issuing letters to the Sub Registrars asking them to refrain from
registering documents, has to be deprecated. Following the view in
Madhupriya‘s case, the learned Judge had left it open to the Police to approach
the Court or the competent authority and get orders of attachment.
18. These three authorities have clearly laid down the law that the Police
officials do not possess jurisdiction to give directions to the Sub Registrar not to
register documents. They certainly have the right to move the Court or
competent authority and get orders of attachment to that effect.
19. The counter affidavit reveals that the Police may have given a
proposal to the competent authority to attach the property. A proposal cannot be
given the same status as an order of attachment passed by the competent
authority.
20. It is here that Mr.Karunanithi places strong emphasis on the order
passed by the Honourable Mr.Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan in W.P.(MD).No.16603
of 2024, Shanmuganathan and another Vs. The Joint Sub Registrar,
Aruppukottai and another, dated 28.01.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 9 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
21. A perusal of the order passed by Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan makes it
clear that the writ petitioners before him were purchasers of the property from
the 8th accused, Muthumari. The issue whether the Police have the power to
issue letters and thereby, restrain a Sub Registrar from registering the
documents, was not gone into by the learned Judge. Hence, this judgment
cannot be treated as a precedent for the purpose of holding that the Police have
such powers. In fact, none of the judgments that have been referred to above
were brought to the notice of the learned Judge, who dismissed the Writ Petition
filed by the purchasers of the property from the 8th accused.
22. In the light of the clear and categorical views expressed by this Court
in the judgments discussed above, the Writ Petition is entitled to succeed. The
letter issued by the third respondent Police to the second respondent/Sub
Registrar will not have any effect with respect to registration of the documents
to be presented by the writ petitioners. As held by Justice N.Anand Venkatesh in
Madhupriya‘s case, the Sub Registrar shall delete the reference to the letter from
the encumbrance certificate. It is open to the third respondent to approach the
appropriate authorities and seek for attachment of the properties. If such an
attachment is ordered, the petitioners will always have a judicial recourse
against such orders of attachment. The Police having not been vested with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 10 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
power to attach the property by themselves or to restrain the Sub Registrar from
receiving documents, the Writ Petition has to be allowed.
23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
26.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
1.The District Registrar,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Rajapalayam Town,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Collectorate Complex,
Virudhunagar Town and District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 11 of 12
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
W.P.(MD).No.3457 of 2025
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 08:28:34 pm )
Page 12 of 12
[ad_1]
Source link