G.RAVICHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.02 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police registered for the offences under Sections 166, 166A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 294(b), 447, 341, 506(2) of IPC and 82(d) of Registration Act, 1908, as against the petitioners.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No.5553 of 2020 submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A8 and A10 in Crime No.2 of 2020, registered on the complaint lodged by the second respondent for the offences under Sections 166, 166A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 294(b), 447, 341, 506(2) of IPC and 82(d) of Registration Act, 1908. The entire allegations are civil in nature and there are civil suits and revenue proceedings are pending between the petitioners and the second respondent herein in respect of the disputed property. Therefore there is absolutely no allegations to attract the offences as against the petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No.5046 of 2020 submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A11 and A12. He further submitted that the petitioners are quasi judicial authorities and passed orders after conducting due enquiry. Therefore, they are nothing to do with the allegations as alleged by the second respondent. He further submitted that all the allegations as against the petitioners are bald and vague and there is no specific allegations as against the petitioners herein. Further, the order passed by the second petitioner is now under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.26436 of 2016 and it is pending. The allegations as against the petitioners are that they received several lakhs for changing patta in the name of the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.5553 of 2020. Except those bald and vague allegations, no other allegation is made as against the petitioners to attract the offences. After conducting due enquiry and after recording the statement from all the parties concerned including the second respondent herein, the second petitioner passed the order thereby cancelling the patta issued in others name and directed to issue patta in favour of the petitioners' mother in Crl.O.P.No.5553 of 2020. In fact the said order is challenged before this Court in W.P.No.26436 of 2016 and it is stayed by an order dated 28.07.2016 and the writ petition is pending. Therefore, the petitioners are being the officials, they are nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the second respondent herein. Therefore, he prayed to quash the FIR as against the petitioners.