IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.09.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM Crl.O.P.No.24078 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 R. Anbalagan .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State by Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Crime No.800 of 2008 Erode District. 2. P.C.Gugamani. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.800 of 2008 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police, quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned by allowing this Criminal Original Petition. For Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh, Senior Counsel for M/s. R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondent-1 : Mr. A.Saravanan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R The petitioner who is arrayed as A13 in Crime No. 800 of 2008 on the file of the respondent police station has filed the Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.800 of 2008 as far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prosecution case is that on 22.07.1008, the brother of the complainant by name P.C.Palanisamy, his wife Malarvizhi, and their son Sivabalan were kidnapped and the house and their garden were destroyed. On 23.07.2008 at about 11.00 p.m, N.K.K.P.Raja's men namely Chinnappan, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Varadharajan, Murugesh, Palanisamy, O.C.Viswanathan, Gopinath, K.P.Sami, T.R.Rangasamy, Balaji, Sampathkumar, Sundaram, Sundararajan, Anbalagan (Petitioner), Office Assistant of Sub Registrar, Karunakaran, U.R.Chandrasekaran, P.C.Chennimalaigounder, Kumar, Karuppannan, Kolandaivel and other known persons came to the thatched shed in which, his parents were residing; the accused persons attacked the father of the complainant and obtained his thumb impression by coercion and force; because of the said incident the father of the complainant was suffering from mental torture and internal injuries and that he died on 13.09.2008 at about 3.00 p.m. N.K.K.P.Raja and his men are responsible for the death of his father. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that prior to lodging of the complaint, the defacto complainant had filed a sworn affidavit in H.C.P.No.1114 of 2008 and in the said affidavit he had stated as under:- " I state that I and my brother P.C.Palanisamy owned around 22 acres of land and building and the third respondent in the main HCP was indulging in Kattapanchayat to grab away the land of my family. On 22.07.2008, the third respondent and the other respondents kidnapped my brother P.C.Palanisamy, his wife Malarvizhi and my brother's son Sivabalan. I immediately lodged a complaint by telegram on 22.07.2008 to the Superintendent of Police. On the night of 23.07.2008, the men of the third respondent coercively obtained signatures from my aged parents viz., S.Chinnasamy gounder, aged 97 and mother Ramayammal aged 90." But the said Gugamani had not stated anything regarding the alleged attack by the accused against his parents Chinnasamy Gounder and Ramayammal. Only after the death of Chinnasamy Gounder on 13.09.2008, due to old age, the natural death had been taken advantage of to falsely implicate the accused. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that between 23.07.2008 and 13.09.2008 no such complaint has been lodged, and therefore submitted that it is a false complaint. In support of the above contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2008(11) Scale 715 in the case of "Gorige Pentaiah ..vs.. State of Andhra Pradesh and others" wherein in paragraphs 15 and 16, it is observed as under:- " 15. On careful consideration of the prayer made in the second suit, it becomes abundantly clear that respondent No.3 was not even in possession of the suit property on the date of incident and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhrapradesh. When respondent No.3 was not even in possession of the land in question, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allegation made in the complaint, that the appellant demolished the wall on 14.06.2004, could not arise. The allegations are totally baseless and without any foundation. On the face of it, it looks that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.3 was totally false and frivolous. The complaint was filed with an oblique motive. In this view of the matter, charges under sections 427 and 447 are also wholly illegal and unsustainable in law. 16. In our considered view, in a case of this nature, the High court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the complaint." 3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel. 4. Before considering the said submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, the actual allegations contained in the First Information Report is to be considered. In the First Information Report the informant had stated as under:- " fle;j 22/07/2008 md;W vdJ mz;zhh; gp/rp/gHdpr;rhkp flj;jg;gl;L kw;Wk; FLk;gj;jpdh; flj;jg;gl;L tPL. njhl;lk; mHpf;fg;gl;lJ/ cld; 23/07/2008 md;W ,ut[ 11/00 kzpf;F vdJ bgw;nwhh; j';fp ,Uf;Fk; rhisf;F nkw;go vd;/nf/nf/gp/uh$h Ml;fs; fh";rpf;nfhapy; rpd;dg;gd;. fh";rpf;nfhapy; tujuh$d;. nfhapy;ghisak; KUnfc&;. ntyk;ghisak; gHdpr;rhkp. X/rp/tp!;tehjd;. X/rp/tp!;tehjdpd; kfd; nfhgpehj;. jpKf xd;wpa brayhsh; nf/gp/rhkp. o/Mh;/u';frhkp. ghyh$p. rk;gj;Fkhh;. Re;juk;. Re;juuh$d;. bgUe;Jiw rhh;gjpthsh; md;gHfd;. mt;tYtyf cjtpahsh; xUth;. gj;jpu vGj;jh; fUzhfud;. a{.Mh;/re;jpunrfud;. (uhR). ft[d;rpyh;. gp/rp/brd;dpkiyf;ft[z;lh;. ghyg;ghisak; kzpaf;fhuh; kfd; Fkhh;. Mol;lh; fUg;gzd;. rPyk;gl;o FHe;ijnty;. kw;Wk; milahsk; bjhpe;j egh;fs; bgah; bjhpahj gyh; te;J jhf;fp Fuy;tiyaj;ij jhf;fp. ,lJ gf;fk; khh;gpy; jhf;fp. kh;k cWg;g[fis cijj;J. fhy;fis mKf;fp moj;J cijj;J tyJ ifia. ,lJ ifia KWf;fp gpd;dh; fj;jp KidapYk;. Jg;ghf;fp KidapYk;. gj;jpuj;jpYk;. btw;W jhs;fspYk;. ifnuif bgw;W brd;wdh;/ , r;rk;gtk; Fwpj;J 19/08/2008 njjp tphpthf j';fSf;F vdJ jhahh; gjpt[ jghypy; g[fhh; mDg;gp ,Ue;jhh;/ ,r;rk;gt';fshy; kpft[k; kd cisr;ry; gl;Lk;. cs;fha';fspdhYk;. cly;epiy ghjpf;fg;gl;Lk; ,d;W 13/09/2008 rdpf;fpHik khiy 3 kzpf;F vd; je;ij kuzk; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mile;Jtpl;lhh;/ mth; kuzj;jpw;F vd;/nf/nf/gp/uh$ht[k;. mtUila Ml;fSnk fhuzk; MFk;/" It is not the contention of the learned senior counsel that there are no allegations as against the accused including the petitioner herein. But the contention of the learned senior counsel is that the aforesaid allegations are not true, but totally false and the falsity of the allegations can be seen from the non mentioning of the aforesaid allegations in the affidavit filed by the informant in HCP.No.1114 of 2008. 5. It is true that the allegations contained in the First Information Report regarding the alleged attack on the parents of the first informant have not been mentioned in the affidavit filed by the first informant in HCP.No.1114 of 2008; but from that alone this Court cannot came to the conclusion that the allegations contained in the First Information Report are false. Since primafacie the allegations contained in the First Information Report reveal the commission of cognizable offences, a case has been registered and hence at this stage it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the investigation. During the course of investigation all the materials, which in the opinion of the accused will falsify the allegations made in the First Information Report, can be produced before the Investigating Officer and it is for the Investigating Officer to consider the same along with the other evidence gathered during the course of investigation and file a final report accordingly. But at this stage it is not for this Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the First Information Report by comparing the allegations contained in the First Information Report with the averments in the affidavit filed by the informant in the said HCP.No.1114 of 2008. 6. As far as the decision of the Apex Court in "2008 (11) Scale 715" is concerned, the said decision is totally inapplicable to the facts of this case. In the said decision, the Apex Court considered the allegations made against the accused and came to the conclusion that the ingredients of the offences under sections 3(1) (10) of SC/ST Act and section 506 IPC have not been made out; further by taking into consideration that the complainant had filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession observed that when the complainant had sought for such a prayer in the suit, he could not be presumed to be in possession of the property in respect of which offences under sections 427 and 447 are alleged to have been committed. Therefore, it is clear that the said decision is based on the particular facts of that case and hence it is not applicable to this case. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into the contradictions pointed out by the learned Senior counsel between the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the first informant in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ HCP.No.1114 of 2008. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition and accordingly the Criminal Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate, SR.55469. Crl.O.P.No.24078 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 pa(co) pmk/17.10.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/