P T GOPALARAJA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition is filed by the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.56 of 2002, on the file of the District Crime Branch Police, Chenngai East District, praying to call for the records and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction on grounds such as that the case registered against the petitioners under Sections 403, 406, 421, 441 and 447 IPC is baseless and mala fide on grounds such as that one Shafmaster Leather Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., was the tenant in the premises of the petitioner who failed to pay the rents resulting in filing R.C.O.P.No.12 of 2002 on ground of willful default in payment of rent; that the tenant came to be in possession under the petitioners' mother, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,58,695.00 and on her death on 28.10.2001, the petitioners succeeded to the property and the second petitioner filed an application for eviction to his portion in the Court of District Munsif, Alandur, which by its order of eviction dated 25.04.2002, granted one month time for the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession; that on filing E.P.No.13 of 2002, the delivery was also taken through court. While so, only to harass the petitioners, the complaint has been lodged and the same has been registered in Crime No.56 of 2002 by the respondent Police and hence the above criminal original petition on the following grounds:

(2.) At the time that the above petition came up for admission before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners besides laying emphasis on the grounds of the above criminal original petition, would also submit three judgments respectively reported as under: (i)2002 (1) SCC 241 (S.W.Palanitkar and others Vs. state of Bihar and another) (ii)2001(2) SCC 636 (G.Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) (iii) AIR 2002 SC 1531 (Rishi Anand and another Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others) So far as the first judgment cited above is concerned, the Honourable Apex Court has held that;

(3.) . In consideration of the facts pleaded having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly bearing in mind the legal proposition held in the judgments cited supra, in the case in hand for quashing the proceedings of the case registered by the respondent against the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 403, 406, 421, 441 and 447 IPC, it would be found that on the death of their mother, the petitioners have become the owners of the premises in which the de facto complainant is the tenant; that the premises of the third accused as a rental premises belonging to the first and the second accused and it is a factory and the Office of the complainant is located therein with machinaries for manufacture of leather goods and raw materials as finished goods, the value of which is estimated about Rs.2.85 Crores and the value of the machineries alone is about Rs.1.97 Crores.