Taking a serious view of attempts being made to usurp properties of a man with special needs, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has transferred the investigation in the case to the CB-CID. It came to light that apart from family members, at least four advocates have been involved in the conspiracy to usurp the properties of the man.
The court was hearing anticipatory bail and bail petitions of the accused in the case. Some of the accused were arrested based on the complaint filed by the man’s paternal aunt. She lodged a complaint with Madurai police after learning that her nephew was being cheated by those who were taking care of him.
The man with special needs was born to one Vasanthakumar and his first wife. Following the demise of his wife, Vasanthakumar married Rajeshwari, a widow with two children, Senthilkumar and Meena. Vasanthakumar transferred the properties in his name to Rajeshwari and his son through his first wife.
However, in quick succession, Vasanthakumar and Rajeswari passed away. Senthilkumar and Meena then started taking care of the man with special needs, though they were living separately with their own families after marriage. Then four advocates – Sulaiman Basha, Purushothaman, Muthukumar and Gopinath – joined the duo.
The guardians of the man and the advocates conspired to sell the properties in his name. A legal heir certificate was made excluding the man with special needs and most of the properties were sold. The matter exploded after Senthilkumar tried to get a lion’s share of the properties and Meena started opposing it.
The man with special needs is currently under the care of Meena and her husband. They have claimed to be innocent. Taking up the petitions for hearing, the court dismissed them and ordered a CB-CID probe in the case. It was also said that the four advocates had also purchased the properties.
Justice P.N. Prakash observed that considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the properties sold were located in Chennai and Madurai, the CB-CID should probe the case. An officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police should be appointed as the investigating officer, the court said.