IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.07.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.27472 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 1.R.Pattivinayagam 2.R.Murugan 3.R.Natarajan .. Petitioners Vs. 1.State by Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore. (Crime No.137 of 2007) 2.A.R.Ramanathan .. Respondents Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings pending trial in C.C.No.356 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore and to quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vijayakumaran For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Saravanan, GA (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : Mr.N.Sivabharathi Legal Aid Counsel ***** O R D E R The petitioners seek quash of proceedings pending in C.C.No.356 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore. 2.On a complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent, case in Crime No.137 of 2007 has been registered informing that the petitioners herein had entered into a criminal conspiracy towards usruping the properties belonging to the complainant, had on 11.03.2007 prevented the complainant from entering into his property and committed offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating by fabricating false documents and using the same as genuine. On investigation, the final report has been filed against the three petitioners herein for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offence under Sections 120(b), 341, 406, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 and 506(ii) IPC. 3.In support of the quash petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case came to be registered by the 1st respondent on the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, and on a complaint before it. The learned counsel informed that the complaint allegation was to the effect 'that one P.S.P.Somasundaram Chettiar who is the relative of one Valliammal who is the mother of the 2nd respondent herein and Chairman and permanent Director of one Somasundaram Corporation Limited, had given a Power of Attorney to the mother of 2nd respondent to look after the lands which is situated in Survey Nos.128, 129, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138/1, 138/2 in totalling 16.89 acres and the above said properties were sold by the said Somasundaram Chettiar to the Corporation. It is further alleged that while so the 2nd respondent herein on the advise of his mother went to the place where the properties are situated on 11.03.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. The petitioners who were there illegally waylaid the 2nd respondent and told him that the properties were divided and given to them by his father by virtue of one partitioned deed and the same was shown to the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent was shocked and came to know that the said documents was forged by the petitioners and his father in order to take over the property. The petitioners threatened the 2nd respondent by taking an aruval that they would kill him. Immediately, he preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent but it was refused to be taken because of the influence of the petitioners.' 4.Learned counsel submitted that the factual position was that 'the petitioners father by name Rengasamy Moopan was a cultivating tenant in the year 1953 under one Seethai Achi wife of Sathappa Chettiar. After the death of Seethai Achi the properties were inherited by P.S.S.Somasundaram Chettiar and on 19.10.67 an agreement for sale was entered into between the father of the petitioners and Somasundaram Chettiar and the properties which are the subject matter of this case were agreed to be sold to the father of the petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. In pursuant to the said agreement, the father of the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.1,37,000/- towards the sale consideration and he was put in possession of the properties and to enjoy the properties as his own. From the said date onwards, the father of the petitioners was enjoying as the owner of the properties. The Corporation represented by Somasundaram Chettiar attempted to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the properties by the father of the petitioners, resulting in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filing of a suit by the father of petitioners in O.S.No.31 of 1971. In the said suit itself the father of the petitioners asserted the payment of Rs.1,37,000/- which was not controverted by the Corporation as well as by Somasundaram Chettiar. After obtaining the decree on 26.04.1972 in the suit, the father of the petitioners and his family members were enjoying the properties asserting hostile title to the knowledge of the corporation and the said Somasundaram Chettiar. Recognizing the absolute possession and enjoyment of the properties by the father of the petitioner which is the subject matter of this case, patta was also transferred in the year 1981. The properties were also divided between the father of the petitioners and his family members under a registered partition deed dated 31.07.1987. While so, two suits were filed by M/s.Somasundaram chettiar religious Private (Family) Trust represented by its trustee T.N.Renganathan against the petitioners and their father in O.S.No.1889 of 1992 and O.S.No.1869 of 1992 for bare injunction restraining them in any manner encumbering or alienating the properties which are the subject matter of the case and a permanent injunction against one acre where a Temple Samathi is situated. The petitioners 1 and 2 also filed a suit in O.S.No.2055 of 1993 against P.S.S.Somasundaram Chettiar, M/s.Somasundaram Corporation (P) Ltd., represented by its Director T.N.Renganathan and M/s.Somasundaram Chettiar, Religious Charitable Private Family Trust, represented by its Trustee Sri T.N.Renganathan for permanent injunction in respect of the properties which is the subject matter of this case. The learned II Additional District Munsif evaluating the above materials assessing its strength applying the provisions of law, as pointed out by the parties, had come to the conclusion that the reasons alleged for not taking steps by PW1 to evict the defendants is not acceptable, that the defendants (Plaintiff in O.S.No.2055/93) are enjoying the suit properties after the cancellation of the sale agreement as owner and was not enjoying the suit properties as cultivating tenants, that the Samadhi is only in an extent of 20 cents, fences as indicated in the Commissioner's report and therefore, the plaintiff in O.S.No.1869 of 92 is entitled to an injunction only to that extent, that the plaintiff in O.S.No.2055/93 and their family members have prescribed title to the suit properties by adverse possession, being in continuous possession of the suit properties for well over the statutory period, and therefore, they are entitled to injunction, excluding 20 cents and that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1889 of 1992 are not entitled to any injunction and concluding so, decreed the suit O.S.No.2055 of 1993 as prayed for, excluding 20 cents, dismissed the suit O.S.No.1889/92 and decreed the suit O.S.No.1869/92 only for 20 cents without costs in all the suits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Aggrieved by the judgment and decree granted by the lower Court, defendants in O.S.N.2055 of 1993 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1889 of 1992 and O.S.No.1869 of 1992 preferred appeals in A.S.No.58 of 2001, 59 of 2001 and 60 of 2001 before the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. After detailed hearing the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, dismissed all the appeals by his judgment dated 10.07.2001 after holding that the appellants have not approached the court with clean hands. After that neither the said P.S.S.Somasundaram Chettiar nor the Corporation nor the trust approached this Court by way of second appeals and as such the civil litigations came to an end. 5.Learned counsel would submit that in such circumstances 'nearly after 7 years, the 2nd respondent in the guise of son of Power of Attorney Holder of P.S.S.Somasundaram Chettiar saying that he was sent to look after the properties which is the subject matter of this case as well as the civil case which were ended in favour of the petitioners in the year 2001 itself, has preferred the false complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore which was referred under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and on the basis of the same final report was filed by the 1st respondent and the case is pending trial in C.C.No.356 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 341, 406, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 and 506(ii) IPC.' 6.In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel placed strong reliance on the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.Nos.50, 59 and 60 of 2001 dated 10.07.2001. 7.A perusal of such judgment would show that such judgment supports the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8.The 2nd respondent has been served but has not entered appearance. Mr.N.Sivabharathi has been appointed as legal aid counsel by this Court on behalf of the 2nd respondent, consequent to the non-appearance of such respondent before this Court. 9.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and the legal aid counsel. 10.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would inform that the charge sheet in the case has been filed in keeping with what was emerged in the course of investigation. 11.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would state that the lower Court having taken cognizance, the petitioners have to agitate their rights and establish their innocence in the course of trial. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.I have considered the rival submissions. 13.In the circumstances put forth before this Court and the unequivocal position that the petitioners/accused who are entitled to hold property in their own right are being sought to be prosecuted on the basis of a compliant which necessarily is false, this Court considers it inappropriate to permit further proceedings in C.C.No.356 of 2008. 14. In exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court in appropriate cases is entitled to look into the documents submitted by the accused. A perusal thereof leaves no doubt at all that the complaint is false and an action in malafides. 15. For the above said reasons, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.356 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gm To 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VI,COIMBATORE 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,COIMBATORE 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAVALLI POLICE STATION,COIMBATORE 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT,MADRAS + 1 CC To Mr.M.Vijayakumaran, Advocate SR NO.47153 + 1 CC To Mr.Sivabharathi, Advocate SR NO.11218 Crl.O.P.No.27472 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 MRD(CO) SRA(13/07/2010) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/