K THIRUNEELAKANDAN Vs. M LATHAMAGESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein who are accused in C.C.No.3839 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Chennai have filed this petition under sec.482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the same.

(2.) Respondent herein has filed a private complaint in C.C.No.3839 of 2002 against the petitioners for the alleged offences under sections 465, 468, 470, 419, 420 read with 34 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr.R.Subramanian appearing for the petitioners submitted as follows:- The first petitioner purchased a plot measuring 2472 sq.ft. In Sri Venkateswara Nagar, Korattur Village, Chengai District in the name of his minor son Kumaragururajan on 15.2.1996 under a registered document No.465/96. The said land originally belonged to one Damodaran who in turn sold it to one Latha Maheswari under sale deed dated 19.6.1992. The said Latha Maheswari has executed a registered deed of power of attorney in favour of the second petitioner on 18.1.1996. By virtue of the said deed of power of attorney, the second petitioner has sold the said plot to the first petitioner's minor son. Eversince the date of purchase, the first petitioner is in possession of the said plot. The respondent herein, taking advantage of similarity in her name falsely claimed the same as her property. The respondent herein filed a complaint in M.P.No.4443 of 1997 before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Chennai against the petitioners for the offences under sec.465, 468, 470, 419 and 430 IPC which was forwarded under sec.156(3) Cr.P.C to the police. The police has registered a case in Crime No.66 of 1998, after investigation referred it as mistake of fact. Suppressing the same the respondent filed Crl.O.P.No.14527 of 2001 before this court for a direction to the police to investigate the matter. This court directed the police to serve a copy of the referred notice to enable her to approach the concerned court by way of private complaint. In the above said Crl.O.P.No.14527 of 2001, the petitioners were not arrayed as respondents, hence, they could not brought to the notice of this court all the facts. Taking advantage of the order passed by this court, the respondent has filed the above said C.C., before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore with similar allegations. The respondent has also preferred O.S.No.1840 of 1998 before the City Civil Court, Madras against the petitioners herein and as she felt that no substance in her suit, she has preferred the said private complaint made use of the order of this court to blackmail the petitioners. The petitioners are leading and reputed medical practitioners. The private complaint is vitiated as the earlier complaint was closed as mistake of fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:- (i) ALPIC FINANCE LTD. v. P.SADASIVAN ((2001) 3 SCC 513) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held in para 5 that "Contours of the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Have been explained in a series of decisions by this Court. In Nagawwa V. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi it was held that the Magistrate while issuing process against the accused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in a conviction of the accused. It was held that the order of Magistrate issuing process against the accused could be quashed under the following circumstances: