K KARUNAKARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quash of proceedings in Crime No. 457 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) The third respondent has preferred a complaint informing of his being engaged in business of cutting and raising granite over a period of twenty five years. He informed of entering upon such activity in respect of an extent of 11.59 and 3.15.5 hectares held by the petitioner, as Managing Director of M/s. Karunai Granites Private Limited. While the right to cut and raise granites from the property was that of the third respondent, this petitioner by engaging his own men, using machinery worth Rs.2 crores belonging to the third respondent, had lifted and stocked granite. When questioned, the petitioner had threatened to destroy the machinery and threatening to cause harm to them had prevented the third respondents' men from removing the machinery. When approached, the petitioner informed of his having obtained orders of interim injunction in his favour and required the complainant to obtain his machinery through Court. The third respondent informed of the petitioner making false allegations, suppressing truth and obtaining two orders of interim injunction under orders in I.A.Nos.280 and 285 of 2013 in O.S.Nos.67 and 69 of 2013 respectively on 15.03.2013. Despite being informed that the petitioner had not obtained any orders as would entitle him to hold the third respondent machinery, the petitioner asked such respondent to approach Court. The petitioner also threatened of causing harm to both the person and machinery of the third respondent. The complainant has contended that though the petitioner had obtained orders of injunction against his entering the property, the petitioner was not entitled to hold on to the machinery. He has informed that machinery worth several crores were being damaged and were being put to use by persons who had no proper knowledge of operating the same. The petitioner after obtaining orders of injunction, had in the presence of panchayatdars, on 15.04.2013, agreed to pay the third respondent and one M.Ravindra Babu, proprietor of Madhu Granites, a sum of Rs.2,35,00,000/-. He has also undertaken to return the third respondent's machinery. Such agreement was signed by the third respondent, the petitioner and M.Ravindra Babu. The petitioner had failed to effect payment and hand over machineries in keeping with the agreement dated 15.04.2013 and unjustly retained the machinery and was damaging the same by use thereof by untrained hands. When questioned, the petitioner continued his wrong doing. Alleging thus, the third respondent had preferred a complaint requesting that his machinery be secured and for action against the petitioner. Upon such complaint, a case in Crime No. 457 of 2013 for offences under sections 409, 420 and 506(i) IPC on the file of the first respondent, stands registered.

(3.) Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also learned senior counsel for third respondent.