IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.35567 of 2007 And M.P.No.1 of 2007 Thangarasu Swamigal ... Petitioner/ Accused 3 Versus C.N.Shanmuganathan ... Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in P.R.C.No.9 of 2006 pending on the file Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.G.Karthikeyan O R D E R The petitioner is the third accused in the case pending in P.R.C.No.9 of 2006 on the file Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam and seeks to quash the case as against him. 2.The first and the second accused in the said case have moved this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2006 and by the order dated 05.02.2007, the proceedings as against them stand quashed. The observations therein are relevant and are as follows: "11. At the outset, it is to be stated that the entire allegations contained in the complaint do not constitute any offence in its face value. It is relevant to note that in the complaint there is not even a whisper about the date of commission of offence. It is also seen from the complaint that the complainant has given a report to the Mettupalayam Police as early as on 15.03.1994. But the fact remains that there is not a whisper about the fate of the complaint given by the complainant. The allegations contained in the complaint shows that there is absolutely no offence committed by the petitioners even under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. There is absolutely no allegation of abuse said to have been made by the petitioner by using the name of the community of the respondent/complainant. It is also seen from the averments and allegations contained in the complaint that the complainant already initiated civil proceedings by filing a Civil Suit in O.S.No.608 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1995 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, and subsequently the same was transferred to the file of the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam, in O.S.No.549 of 1995, and obtained an ex-parte decree and against that, the petuitioner has also filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree. The learned counsel also produced the copy of the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam, in I.A.No.550 of 2006 in O.S.No.549 of 1995, dated 27.11.2006, to the effect that the petition filed by the petitioner to set aside the exparte decree is allowed and the suit abated as whole and hence the suit is to be dismissed. Therefore, it is crystal clear that nothing survives even in the civil proceedings initiated by the respondent/complainant. 12.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a case in SURESH VS. MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPPA DANANNAVA [(2005) 3 SCC 670] that, "11.As already noticed, the complaint was filed on 17.5.1999 after a lapse of 10- 1/2 years and, therefore, the very private complaint filed by Respondent 1 is not at all maintainable at this distance of time." 13.In the instant case also, as already pointed out, the respondent/complainant has come forward with the private complaint nearly after 11 years. It is pertinent to be noted that even in the present complaint there is absolutely no mention about the specific date on which the occurrence is said to have taken place. A perusal of the complaint discloses that admittedly, the respondent/complainant has given a report to Mettupalayam police as early as on 15.03.1994 and therefore, it is crystal clear that he has restored to file a private complaint nearly after 11 years. 14.The yet another important aspect in respect of this case is that the alleged transactions, viz., the purchase of the properties by the petitioner took place as early as in the years 1990 and 1991 and the petitioners have become the absolute owners of the property under the registered sale deeds under the documents Nos.3641/90, 1034 and 1035/91. It is also relevant to note that the respondent even initiated civil proceedings and the Civil Suit also ended in abatement in I.A.No.550 of 2006 in O.S.No.549 of 1995 dated 27.11.2006 and the Civil Court has set aside the exparte decree granted in favour of the respondent/complainant and held that the suit is abated as whole and as such the suit is dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also held in a latest decision in a case in HARISHCHANDRA PRASAD MANI V. STATE OF JHARKHAND in S.L.P.(Criminal) No.3934 of 2006 dated 31.01.2007 that, "It is well-settled by a series of decisions of this Court that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is at least some material indicating the guilt of the accused vide R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388, State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lsl(1992) Suppl. (1) SCC 335, Janta Dal Vs. H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305, Raghubir Saran (Dr) Vs. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 336, State of Karnataka Vs. M.Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122. In the present case, there is not even an iota of material indicating the guilt of the accused persons. It is true that at the stage of taking cognizance adequacy of evidence will not be seen by the Court, but there has to be at least some material implicating the accused, and cognizance cannot be taken merely on the basis of suspicion as it appears to have been done in the present case. To take a contrary view would only lead to harassment of people." The principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra, is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. In this case also, as already pointed out, there is not an iota of evidence or material available on record to implicate the petitioners with the alleged offences mentioned in the complaint. On the other hand, the admitted version of the complainant makes it crystal clear that the complainant has come forward with vague allegations surrounded by suspicions and further the allegations contained in the complaint itself clearly shows that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the disputed property as per the registered sale deeds executed in their favour as early as in the years 1990 and 1991 and therefore, the slae deeds are till date in existence and the sale is not declared null and void and therefore, the petitioners, being the lawful owners under the valid sale deeds, the question of the petitioners committing the alleged offence under Section 420 and other offences not at all arises and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the respondent/complainant is liable to be quashed." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The allegations so far as the present petitioner is concerned is that he had acted at the instigation of the accused 1 and 2. Where the proceedings against the accused 1 and 2 stand quashed nothing survives against the third accused. Accordingly, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.9 of 2006 stand quashed. Hence, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. pri To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Coimbatore 1 cc to Mr.G. Karthikeyan, Advocate, Sr. 18973 Crl.O.P.No.35567 of 2007 And M.P.No.1 of 2007 TRM (CO) kk 30/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/