SIVAKAMI Vs. S KUMARAVADIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 753 of 2010 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No. III, Erode based on the complaint given by the respondent herein, the petitioners have come forward with the present petition. Petitioners herein are A-1 and A-2 in the said complaint. The allegations in the complaint are as follows:

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent herein filed O.S. No. 537 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Erode, claiming ownership of the property measuring to an extent of 1.13 acres comprised in S. No. 17/2A, Suriyampalayam Village, Erode District. Originally, the said property belonged to late L. Muthu who purchased the same on 23.12.1993 out of his own earnings. Subsequently, the said Muthu along with A3 to A5 in the complaint, viz., Eswari, Kuppusamy and Sureshkumar, who are the legal heirs of said L. Muthu, entered into a sale agreement dated 01.12.2006 with the first petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Subsequently, the said Muthu along with A3 to A5 executed a sale deed dated 10.07.2007 in favour of the 1st petitioner, who is A1, in respect of the same property. While so, the respondent herein claimed that the said land, even prior to the execution of sale deed dated 10.07.2007 in favour of the 1st petitioner herein by the said Muthu and A3 to A5, was sold by A3 Muthu in favour of one Rajendra Kumar; therefore, the sale deed dated 10.07.2007 executed in favour of the 1st petitioner herein by the said Muthu and A3 to A5, who are not the owners of the property, is not valid and only the said Rajendra Kumar was the absolute owner of the property, from whom, the respondent had purchased the property on 03.12.2007; therefore, according to the respondent, he had purchased the property from the original owner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of the respondent is purely civil in nature because already a civil suit is pending between the parties in O.S. 537 of 2008 initiated by the respondent. The issue with regard to the ownership is yet to be decided in the civil suit. While so, the respondent filed a false complaint on the same set of allegations. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decisions DEVENDRA V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2009 7 SCC 495, Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar,, 2009 8 SCC 751 and submitted that if there is a flavour of civil nature, the same cannot be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. Criminal Courts should ensure that criminal proceedings are not misused for settling scores or pressurising parties to settle civil dispute.