IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 09.09.2009 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. No.1326 of 2002 and M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 1. G.Rajendran 2. V.Chinnasamy 3. Thotta Babu @ V.Babu 4. M.Chellakannu ... Petitioners vs. S.M.Shanmugam ... Respondent Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy O R D E R The petitioners herein, who are A-5 to A-8 in a private complaint filed viz., P.R. No.28 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427 and 397 read with 402 and 506 (ii) IPC., seek to quash the proceedings. 2. The case of the complainant/respondent is that he was running a petty shop in the property belonging to the 4th accused near Attur Bus stop and for purchasing the property, he entered into an agreement of sale with A4 by making advance; while so, even while the sale agreement was in existence, the fourth accused clandestinely sold the property to the 2nd accused and on coming to know about the same, the complainant filed a civil suit and obtained an order of injunction and on appeal, the injunction was vacated. Under such circumstances, it is alleged that, when proceedings are pending in court, on 14.12.2000, the petitioners and other accused trespassed into the property, indulged in vandalism and after damaging the shop took away the movables and commodities and when their acts were questioned by the complainant and his family members, they were threatened by the accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, with dire consequences. Therefore, the private complaint was filed before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur, who took cognizance of the same observing that a prima facie case has been made out. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier, a complaint was preferred to the police and it was referred as mistake of fact on 02.08.2001 and, after a delay of 4 months, the private complaint has been filed without any substantive materials to constitute the offence; therefore, the proceedings before the trial court are liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on the case laws reported in AIR 1992 SC 2206 (K.M.Mathew v. State of Kerala) and 2002 (1) Crimes 146 (SC) (S.W.Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, by pointing out that, soon after the case was taken on file, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded, 13 witnesses were examined and 43 documents received and that on 08.10.2007, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case holding that there are prima facie materials available to proceed against the accused; would submit that A1 to A3 filed Crl.O.P. No.34770 of 2007 to quash the proceedings and that though stay was granted, when the petition was taken up for final disposal, it was withdrawn since the court was not inclined to entertain the prayer to quash the proceedings. Learned counsel states that one after another, as an alternative, the present petition has been filed on 02.01.2008 only with a view to delay the trial proceedings. 5. On perusal of the materials in the light of the submissions made on either side, I find that positive averments are made in the complaint and valid materials available to constitute the offences alleged. The learned Magistrate, after going into the averments and allegations, has come to a conclusion that there are prima facie materials to constitute the offences and proceeded to take congnizance of the complaint. Therefore, when materials are available showing possibility about the commission of the offence and ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons being a matter for trial, I am of the view that the proceedings before the trial court must be allowed to continue. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Since the matter is of the year 2002, the trial court is directed to proceed further and conclude the proceedings at the earliest. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar JI. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur. 2.-do- thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. +1cc to Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy,Advocate Sr 45513 BV(CO) km/30.9. Crl.O.P. No.1326/2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/