M B NIRMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein who are the accused one and two in case pending in C.C. No.503/2008 before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, seek quash of the proceedings.

(2.) Based on a complaint dated 2.6.2007, an FIR was registered by the first respondent in Cr. No.429 of 2007 and pursuant to investigation thereon, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners informing that an extent of 18.75 acres in S.No.507/1 Sholinganallur Village covered by patta No.159 standing in the name of an ancestor of the land holders had been leased out to the defacto complainant 14 years back, that on or before 26.4.2007 the first accused began building activity of the "Classic Club" close to the land held by the second respondent and using benamis and henchmen caused great damage to the agricultural operations of the second respondent. The land in the second respondent"s possession wrongfully was entered into, a compound wall and new buildings were put up suddenly and at around 9.00 am on 14.7.2006 earth was excavated from the land held by the lessee using machinery. The second respondent was chased away by persons brandishing dangerous weapons. The wrongs were committed with intent of using such land for purposes of providing boating and water-games. Despite knowledge of the wrongful intent of the first accused, the second accused aided him. Thus the accused stand charged for offence u/s.447 IPC. In continuation of the wrongful acts the accused are said to have destroyed the fences and crops of the second respondent, using henchmen who brandished dangerous weapons. The name of the organisation of the second accused viz. 'Exnora' is said to have been wrongfully used for such purposes. Hence the other charges u/s.427 and 506 (ii) IPC.

(3.) Sri Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would first point to the malafides of the first respondent in informing in the charge sheet that the accused were absconding. He would impress upon this Court that the second accused was a well known public figure whose various social activities towards public welfare were well known and well appreciated. He was a person in the everyday public eye and never could be informed to be absconding. While he would refer to much material towards informing that the property claimed by the second respondent to be in his possession was a waterbody and classified as "poramboke", that there was absolutely no material to support the claim of the second respondent and that the second respondent was in litigation with the very persons through whom he claimed possession, the counsel for the second respondent would seek to support the prosecution case by informing that the ownership of the disputed land by the lessors of the second respondent are borne out by records. At the very first blush, it is seen that the statements of List Witnesses No.4 & 5, the Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector, inform of the land in S.No.507/1 Sholinganallur Village being poramboke. The statement of the Village Administrative Officers and the menials inform of encroachment on a small extent by persons other than the second respondent or through whom he claims. In such circumstances, it is difficult to understand how the charge sheet came to be filed when the revenue records do not support the claim of possession by the second respondent.