SUNDARI Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in Crl.R.C.No. 608 of 2011 are the Accused in C.C.No. 10344 of 2001 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The trial court, by judgement dated 12.04.2006, convicted the petitioners 1 to 3 under Sections 448 & 427 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 448 of IPC; and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 427 of IPC and convicted the 4th petitioner under Section 448 r/w 109 and 427 r/w 109 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 448 r/w 109 of IPC; and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 427 r/w 109 of IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed an appeal in Crl.A.No. 123 of 2006. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No. IV], Chennai, by judgement dated 10.03.2011 dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. As against the same, the petitioners have come up with this criminal revision petition [Crl.R.C.No. 608 of 2011]. The facts of the case [C.C.No. 10344 of 2001] in brief are as follows:- The de facto complainant [P.W. 1] in this case is one Mrs. K. Sushila. The property bearing D.No. 19, Rajamangalam Main Road, Villivakkam, Chennai, was brought for sale in E.P.No. 2389 of 1994 in O.S.No. 263 of 1991 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The de facto complainant was the successful bidder in the court auction. The sale was confirmed in her favour on 19.02.1998. Thereafter, in the proceedings in E.P.No. 461 of 2002 the learned IX Assistant Judge ordered delivery of vacant possession of the property to P.W. 1. Accordingly, through court, the possession was delivered to the petitioner by the Court Amin on 10.09.2001. On taking possession, P.W. 1 locked the building except two rooms which were occupied by two persons by name R. Vijayakumar and Mrs. Pushpavalli Jayakumar.

(2.) While so, according to the prosecution, during the night on 10.09.2001, the petitioners 1 to 3 with the help of the 4th petitioner broke open the lock and took possession of the said property. At that time, the de facto complainant was not present. She came to know about the occurrence only on 13.09.2001. When she questioned A1 to A3, on 14.09.2001, they allegedly threatened her of dire consequences if she dared to question. Then she made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajamangalam Police Station on 14.09.2001 in respect of the said occurrences which took place on 10.09.2001 as well as on 14.09.2001. Based on the same, a case was registered in Crime 1513 of 2001 under Sections 170, 120B, 307, 350, 357, 383, 405, 425, 427, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 503, 504, & 502 of IPC against the petitioners [A1 to A4], During the course of investigation, the case was altered into one under Sections 427, 447, 448 and 506 (ii) of IPC. On completing the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 22.11.2001 against all the petitioners herein for offences under sections 448 and 427 of IPC alone. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in turn, took cognizance of the same in C.C.No. 10344 of 2001 [hereinafter referred to as "the police report case"].

(3.) While so, on 07.12.2001, the de facto complainant [P.W. 1], Mrs. Sushila filed a private complaint before the very same Metropolitan Magistrate. In the complaint, the de facto complainant narrated about the occurrence on 10.09.2001 as well as on 14.09.2001. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the same, recorded the statements of the complainant and two other witnesses on 07.01.2002. Taking cognizance in C.C.No. 296 of 2002 [hereinafter referred to as "the private complaint case"] for offence under Sections 120B, 352 and 381 of IPC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the accused. Al to A3 in C.C.No. 10344 of 2001 are the accused in this private complaint and, accordingly, they appeared before the Court.