T. SENTHILKUMARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.129 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sections 448, 427 and 506(i) of IPC on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent before the first respondent, detailed enquiry was conducted after issuance of CSR.No.597 of 2019 and closed by the report dated 18.09.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed private complaint before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.242 of 2020. The learned Magistrate without conducting any enquiry without stating any reason for satisfaction, mechanically referred the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register FIR and for investigation by an order dated 24.01.2020. As directed by the learned Magistrate, the first respondent registered the impugned FIR for the offences under Section 448, 427 and 506(i) of IPC. He further submitted that the second respondent attempted to abuse the process of law by filing the present complaint with the knowledge of the fact that the petitioner and the second respondent already instituted suit for the property dispute between them. In fact, the false complaint has been lodged only for the cause of action to file a suit for injunction as against the petitioner by the second respondent herein. The first respondent after conducting enquiry rightly closed the complaint as civil in nature and directed the parties to approach civil court, and till then not to indulge in any law and order issue by the closure report dated 18.09.2019. 2. He further submitted that on going through the entire complaint, there is absolutely no prima facie case made out for the offence under Sections 448, 427 and 506(i) of IPC. The entire allegations are pertaining to the property dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent and there is absolutely no allegation to attract the offence under Sections 448, 427 and 506(i) of IPC as against the petitioner herein. Even assuming that the allegations made in the complaint are proved, the property is a joint family property and the right of the petitioner cannot be taken away. The right of co-sharer to enjoy the joint family property is a civil right. Therefore, such a right if denied by the other co-sharer, for one or other, must be enforced by taking recourse to the remedies available under the civil laws. Therefore, rightly the petitioner as well as the second respondent filed suits in O.S.No.7269 of 2019 and OS.No.8141 of 2019 on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, which are pending. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

(3.) Per contra, Mr.G.Prabakaran, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent lodged complaint alleging that the petitioner and the second respondent are brother and sister. The property is situated at No.23, Thanikachalam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 was originally owned by their father. In the year 2002, he settled the property in favour of the petitioner and the second respondent by the registered settlement deed 21.08.2002 registered for the document No.1269 of 2002 with the Office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, Chennai, thereby retaining his life estate and provided 50% undivided share to each. Though the property was settled in terms of allotting undivided share, as per oral agreement, the ground floor of the premises was shared between the petitioner as well as the second respondent. Both were permitted to run their business. The second respondent is being a divorcee, she is allotted the first floor of the premises along with her aged father. The petitioner opted to reside in the second floor. Accordingly, the petitioner as well as the second respondent are living there and also run their respective business in the premises. While being so, in the year 2017, taking advantage of the destitute marital status of the second respondent, the petitioner started problem with the possession of the second respondent to grab the entire property with ulterior motive by using his muscle power. Thereafter, there was a settlement by mutual negotiation by the elders of the family. The petitioner also tendered apology to the second respondent herein. While being so, their father in the month of July 2019, was hospitalised due to brain stroke. Therefore, he lost his capacity of speaking and even could not able to recognize the people.