R PATTIVINAYAGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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.'