T. YAMINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.113 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

(2.) Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.2880 of 2020 submitted that there are totally four accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A4. The second respondent lodged complaint on 29.05.2012 and on receipt of the same, the first respondent registered FIR in Cr.No.315 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 419, 467, 471, 420 of IPC read with 120 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent laid final report for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 417, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447 read with 120(b) of IPC read with 34 of IPC and offences under Sections 82 (c) & (d) of Registration Act, 1908 and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court. He further submitted that the first and third accused are his wife and daughter respectively. The second respondent lodged complaint alleging that the disputed property originally belonged to one Chokkalingam and he executed power of attorney in favour of one, Ganesan on 28.01.1967.

(3.) Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.13791 of 2020 submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A3 who is none other than the daughter of the fourth accused herein. At the time of purchase of the said property, she was only 20 years old and she had absolutely no knowledge about the purchase and she had no income at the time of purchasing the property. The present complaint is clear abuse of process of law since it is the second complaint, that too without mentioning the earlier complaint lodged by the complainant. The legal heirs of the deceased, original owners of the property have already filed suit in O.S.No.873 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur and after a period of two years from the date of the suit, the present impugned complaint has been lodged as against the petitioner and others. Even according to the case of the prosecution, no cognizable offence is made out as against the petitioner and there is absolutely no material to attract those offences.