IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 09.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.33951 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 D.Anand .. Petitioner/2nd Accused Vs State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police G-1, Vepery Police Station, Vepery, Chennai-7 .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in C.C.No.8078 of 2006 pending on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in case pending in C.C.No.8078 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai seeks quash of proceedings as against him. 2.The petitioner, who is an advocate, acting on behalf of his client, American Baptist Foreign Mission Society towards protecting their interest in the property situated at No.7, E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai has brought to the attention of the authorities concerned, the wrongful entry in the records regarding ownership of such property made at the behest of one Dhanaraj Kocher, father of the defacto complainant in the present case and also sought to prevent putting up construction on such property by such person, on the claim of ownership. In this regard, the petitioner had addressed the District Registrar, Perimet, Chennai and CMDA, Corporation of Chennai as also caused anxious telegrams to the concerned authorities. As early as on 19.08.2006, the petitioner had addressed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a communication to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range informing of orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in contempt petition, of the father of the complainant, being party thereto and of such person flouting the orders of Court by using sheer muscle power and influence, illegally interfering in the day- to-day affairs at the disputed property and creating nuisance and disturbance. The father of the complainant had forcefully taken away the board put up by the real owners of the property i.e., the petitioner's client. The petitioner has also alleged corruption, bribery and influence over the sub-ordinate police. 3.In this background, a complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant, Ramesh D.Kochar to the effect that his watchman at the property at No.7, E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai had informed him that 5 or 6 rowdies came and threatened the watchman to vacate and run away, otherwise he would be beaten up and thrown out. The defacto complainant asked the watchman to inform the police station which is on the opposite side of the site. On arriving at the scene at 4 p.m., he found one Samuel and the petitioner removing his name plate and causing damage to the gate and fence and taking up wrongful possession of the property. 4.According to the charge sheet in the case, the complaint was preferred at 6 p.m. on 12.09.2006 and entered in CSR No.426 of 2006. On further investigation, case had been registered in Crime No.1461 of 2006 under Sections 147, 448, 427, 341, 506(i) IPC at 3 p.m. on 18.09.2006 and the same is now pending trial in C.C.No.8078 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case is based on false claim and arises out of animosity of the defacto complainant towards the petitioner owing to the petitioner's action in his capacity as an advocate. The petitioner had done no more than protecting the interest of his client who are the owners of the property. Civil litigation is pending between his clients and the defacto complainant. The petitioner's fear of the sub-ordinate police acting hand-in-glove with the defacto complainant as informed by him in his letter dated 19.08.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police has been realized. The learned counsel submits that this is a fit case where this Court would exercise its inherent power to quash the false complaint pending against the petitioner. 6.I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7.Given the background of the case, it is quite clear that what is essentially a civil dispute in respect of which the petitioner is trying to carry forward the interest of his client has been given the colour of a criminal offence. As against the complaint informing of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wrongful actions at about 12.30 p.m. on 12.09.2006 involving 5 or 6 rowdy elements, the petitioner and one another alone stand arrayed as accused. The compliant as regards the active involvement of the petitioner and one another is that they removed the name plate of the defacto complainant and pushed aside the gate and fence and tried to occupy the property illegally. The various communications of the petitioner shows his stand that it is the defacto complainant and his father who were trying to usurp the property belonging to the petitioner's client and in fact the communication of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Police inter alia informs that the notice board put up by the petitioner's client at the site had been forcefully taken away by the father of the defacto complainant and others towards creating chaos and tension in the disputed property. 8.In the circumstances of this case, where the respondent police has chosen not to register a FIR upon receipt of the complaint but merely has entered the same in the community service register and subsequently has registered a crime and informed in the final report of commission of offence only by two persons, this Court is inclined to accept the submission that the action of the respondent police in the present case is not bonafide. The dispute essentially is one of civil nature. Considering the fact that an advocate should not be deterred in carrying out his functions under threat of criminal complaints, this Court would allow this petition. 9.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.8078 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gm To 1.The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police G-1, Vepery Police Station, Vepery, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.33951 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 RS (CO) RH (28.4.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/