JAINUDEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No. 68 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur, Ramnad District, as against the petitioners.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the the defacto complainant is a Special Sub Inspector Police attached with the first respondent police station. There was a civil dispute between two parties namely Mohamed Eessaq and Panchandi for construction of compound wall in the Pallivasal premises. Both the parties lodged a complaint before the first respondent police and they have been issued CSR receipt. On that time the complaint has been closed as if they agreed to survey the land by the Revenue Authority. Subsequently, after survey of the land, one party namely Mohammed Eessaq tried to built a compound wall. On that time, other side parties opposed the same. Immediately, both the parties lodged a complaint and case has been registered in Cr.No.79 of 2015 against Panchandi and others for offences under Section 506(ii) and 427 IPC and other Crime No.80 of 2015 registered against Mohammed Eessaq and others for offences under Section 294(b) IPC. In such circumstances on11.01.2016 a summon has been issued to the Mohammed Eessaq for his complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad vide current paper No.N.Dis-G3/3553/2066/2015, dated 28.12.2015 and N.Dis-G3/35284/2026/15, dated 22.12.2015.

(3.) On 12.01.2015 at about 11.45 a.m. the said Mohammed Eessaq appeared before the first respondent police along with the 1st and 2nd petitioners. The opposition party i.e., Panjandi also appeared before the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant for enquiry. The Investigation Officer called only a two person i.e., Mohammed Eessaq and Panjandi for enquiry inside the police station. These petitioners stood outside of the police premises. On enquiry made by the second respondent, he has asked that there was a differentiate in signature in the complaint given by the Mohammed Eessaq. On that time the petitioners, who stood outside used abusive words against the second respondent/defacto complainant and detered the public servant from discharging his duty. Hence, the complaint has been lodged and the charge has been laid against the petitioners/accused.