Sufficient Grounds For Prosecution: Madras High Court Asks Trial Court To Proceed With Land Grab Case Against Former Minister MK Alagiri

Justice P Velmurugan noted that as per the submissions, there were no grounds for discharging the Minister from the criminal case. Rather, the court observed that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with Alagiri's prosecution.

“Hence, in my considered opinion, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused regarding the merits of the case, as discussed above, do not constitute grounds for discharging the petitioner from the criminal case. Therefore, based on the available evidence, this Court finds sufficient grounds to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner / the first accused,” the court said.

The allegation against Alagiri was that he conspired with some other persons to grab a temple property. For the said purpose, the temple poosaris executed an exchange deed with another person who then sold the property to one Sampath Kumar. It was alleged that Alagiri registered an educational institutional trust and purchased the land through Sampath Kumar by granting a power of attorney.

The Executive Officer of the HR & CE Department, upon discovering the fraudulent exchange deed filed a complaint with the concerned police based on which a case was registered for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC. Alagiri was arrayed as the first accused. The final report was filed for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 423, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Pending trial, Alagiri also filed a petition seeking discharge from the proceedings.

The Magistrate noted that there was no material to show a prima facie case for offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC and discharged Alagiri from the charges. The Magistrate, however found sufficient ingredients to prosecute Alagiri from the offences under Sections 120B and 408 of the IPC. The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Unit and Alagiri filed criminal revision petitions challenging the order of the Magistrate.

On behalf of Alagiri it was argued that he had not purchased the disputed land with the intention of executing a reciprocal deed. It was argued that there was no incriminating evidence to establish a conspiracy between him and the other accused. It was further submitted that when Alagiri purchased the property from Sampath Kumar, the two poosaris had already passed away. It was argued that the complaint was motivated by political vendetta underscoring his good faith. Alagiri also contended that there was nothing to show that the documents were forged or created to commit fraud.

The Additional Advocate General submitted that the issue involved in the case had to be substantiated by evidence and statements, which could be done only through a full-fledged trial. It was submitted that the Magistrate had erroneously concluded that only offences under Sections 120B and 408 were made out. It was submitted that the Magistrate's findings changing the charges may be fatal to the prosecution case, and the inquiry and statement made by the police against the petitioner would likely end in vain.

The court noted that whether Alagiri was implicated in the conspiracy, whether the property was temple property, etc, necessitated a thorough examination during the trial. The court added that while considering the discharge petition, the court should not examine the prosecution's case and not consider the defence arguments. In the present case, the court noted that the prosecution materials established a prima facie case against Alagiri.

“It is well settled legal principle that, at the time of discharge, the court should examine the prosecution's case and not consider the defence arguments or documents produced by the accused. The prosecution materials, including witness statements, establish a prima facie case against the petitioner/first accused,” the court said.

Thus, the court set aside the Magistrate's order discharging Alagiri from the offences and dismissed Alagiri's plea seeking discharge from the remaining offences. The court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the framing of charges and gave liberty to Alagiri to take his defence before the trial court.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. J. Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by For Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Srinivas Senior Advocate For Mr. Baranidharan

Case Title: The State v MK Alagiri

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

Case No: Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.320 of 2021 & 1416 of 2024