K SANTHANAKRISHNAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MAYILADUTHURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as A15 in PRC. No. 26/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Mayiladuthurai, to quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioner/A 15 is concerned. The proceedings in PRC. No. 26/2003 arises out of the FIR dated 7.8.2002 lodged by one S. Mahadevan, who is none else than the son of the petitioner herein through his first wife, against the petitioner and few others regarding the occurrence allegedly taken place at 7.30 p.m. on 7.8.2002, in the presence of the defacto complainant and his brother in Timber Depot in Srinivasa Perusal Thottam. The complaint proceeds as if one Tata Sumo bearing Regn. No. TN 63 Y 3675 came and stopped in front of Timber depot and the accused 1 to 4 armed with deadly weapons, got down from the same and they threatened the defacto complainant and his brother to leave the shop and go away and thereafter, they started attacking the defacto complainant and his brother and also damaged the articles, such as telephone, mirror and other articles lying on the table to the value of Rs. 2,000/- and they removed Rs. 1,500/- from the cash box and thereafter, they forcibly abducted the defacto complainant and his brother in the same Tata Sumo towards Needoor and they were got down from the vehicle on the way and what is further stated in the complaint is that the occurrence took place only at the instigation of his father, who is inimical towards them. The complaint was registered and investigated into and the final report was filed by the Investigating Officer for the offences under Sections 148, 452, 342, 307, 392, 352 r/w 397, 506(ii), 365 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act insofar as A1 is concerned and under Sections 148, 452, 342, 307, 506(h), 365 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and loss) Act insofar as A2 is concerned, under sections 147, 452, 342 and 365 IPC and Section Tamil Nadu Proper of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act insofar as A3 to A14 are concerned and under Sections 307 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act r/w 109 IPC insofar as A15/father is concerned, who is the petitioner herein.

(2.) The petitioner/A15/father has filed this petition to quash the proceedings, by saying that the materials available do not prima facie sustain the charges under Sections 307 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act r/w 109 IPC against him and the present complaint is counter blast to the earlier complaint filed by the father against his son in the year 2000 onwards and the allegations raised against the petitioner do not attract the ingredients for the offences as referred to above.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the State.