Madras High Court
K.Selvakumaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 16 December, 2021
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017
1. K.Selvakumaran
2. S.Rajalakshmi ...Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
West Police Station, Villupuram.
2. D.Jayakumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.17 of 2013 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram to quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar
For Respondents : R1 – Mr.P.Govindarajan,
Assistant Public Prosecutor
R2 – Mr.M.Manohar
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.17 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 294(b), 352, 506(ii) of I.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegation in the complaint indicate that there was a dispute in the joint family property between the petitioners and other family members and a suit was also filed in this regard. However, the mother of the defacto complainant had sold the property to the present accused in the year 2010. Thereafter, the accused in order to enter the property threatened the defacto complainant and abused him as the police filed a negative charge sheet. They sent various complaints to the higher officials including High Court. Thereafter, filed a protest petition.
3. Based on the same, the private complaint is taken on file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this private complaint is 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017 nothing but abuse of process of law and all the civil disputes have been given a criminal colour and the entire allegation has been proceeded only in order to defeat the rights of the petitioner over the purchase of the property from the mother of the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant had already filed a suit in O.S.No.119 of 2010 for permanent injunction against the petitioners which was dismissed on 01.10.2021 after full trial by the learned Additional District Judge. Suit filed for declaration has also been dismissed. Previously, police had filed negative report and the private complaint has been taken on file only on the basis of the protest petition. Hence, submitted that the entire private complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the dismissal of the suits. However, it is submitted that the accused trespassed into the property and abused the defacto complainant. Thereby, opposed for quashing this petition.
3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017
5. Heard both the counsels and perused the material.
6. The entire private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate indicate that the primary grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the dispute over the joint family property held by the members and it is also not disputed by the defacto complainant that certain portion of the property has already been sold to the present petitioners, by the mother of the defacto complainant in the year 2010 and possession is also appears to be given.
7. Hence, the allegation of the defacto complainant is mainly with regard to the grievance over the property sold by the mother of the defacto complainant. The entire allegation as to threat is also vague without any materials. The police have also investigated the matter and closed the case as a mistake of fact. The order taking cognizance of the learned Magistrate also indicate that he has not applied his mind. In fact, he has recorded the fact that the petitioner not given the name of the petitioner K.Selavakumaran and others and others have not been named. Only in the 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017 application filed in the form of protest petition, others have been roped in the criminal case. The entire allegation clearly indicates that this complaint is motivated and continuation of the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same is quashed herein.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet in C.C.No.17 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 294(b), 352, 506(ii) of I.P.C. is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.12.2021 ggs / kbs Internet:Yes / No Index:Yes / No Speaking / Non-Speaking order 5/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017 To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram.
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Villupuram.
6/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ggs / kbs Crl.O.P.No.12213 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7984 & 7985 of 2017 16.12.2021 7/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis