THAVASIYAPPAN Vs. PERIASAMY NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint preferred by Thavasiappan, the appellant herein in CC No. 144 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam, has been rejected on the ground that the Civil Court has not initiated any proceedings against the respondent/accused for violation of an injunction order granted against the respondent prior to 16-1-1982 in I. A. No. 60 of 1982 in O. S. No. 42 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam. Hence this Appeal.

(2.) The Appellant filed O. S. No. 42 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam for injunction against the respondents, and obtained interim injunction in I. A. No. 60 of 1982 prior to 16-1-1982. The respondents in violation of the injunction order, unlawfully entered into the toilet belonging to the appellants, on 16-1-1982, which necessitated the appellant to file a complaint against the respondents under Ss. 447, 427 and 506, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, acquitted the respondents on the ground that no complaint has been received from the Civil Court, since the offence alleged also falls under S. 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the acquittal of the respondents on the ground that no complaint has been lodged by the Civil Court as provided under S. 188 of Indian Penal Code is erroneous and there can be an independent complaint for violation of an injunction order in a criminal forum. I entirely agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and I find that the acquittal of the respondent on the ground that no complaint has been received from the Civil Court as provided under S. 188 of the Indian Penal Code is erroneous and a Criminal Court can sustain a complaint, independent of a complaint from a Civil Court.