PALANIAPPAN Vs. RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi on 17.08.2009 issuing process to the petitioner and three other persons in a case instituted by the respondent herein on private complaint, which was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi as C.C.No.260 of 2009 for alleged offences punishable under sections 379 and 427 IPC. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate issuing summons under section 204 of Cr.P.C. is challenged in this criminal revision case by the revision petitioner, who figures as the 2nd accused in the said calender case.

(2.) NOTICE before admission was issued and both the parties are represented by counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Perumal, representing the counsel on record for the revision petitioner and by Mr.A.Hajamohideen learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers and the records summoned from the court below are perused.

(3.) THE mere fact that the revision is maintainable does not mean that the revision petition has got to be allowed. The main ground on which the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate is sought to be challenged is that the complaint has been preferred as a counter-blast for the eviction order obtained against the respondent herein and in order to prevent the landlord, namely the revision petitioner, from enjoying the fruits of the eviction order. In short, the contention of the revision petitioner seems to be that the complaint is an example of abuse of process of court. In support of the said contention, it is pointed out on behalf of the revision petitioner that an order of eviction was passed long back in RCOP No.2 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Paramakudi and an execution petition was filed in E.P.No.16 of 2001 on the file of the said court in 2001 itself and still the revision petitioner, who suffered an eviction order was creating hurdle for the execution of the eviction order. It is also brought to the notice of the court that the respondent herein, after suffering an order of eviction in the court of the Rent Controller, failed in his attempt to challenge the eviction order in the appellate forum and also in the High Court in the revision filed against the judgment of the appellate authority and that with a view to prevent execution of the eviction order, a false complaint had been lodged and on the failure of the police to take action as wished by the respondent herein, he preferred a private complaint in which the learned Judicial Magistrate has chosen to issue process.