V. PANDI Vs. S. DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/accused in C.C.No.465 of 2010 facing trial for the offence under Ss. 381, 408, 447 and 120(B) Cr.P.C. filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.24187 of 2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. The Trial Court dismissed the same by order dtd. 7/9/2022. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that an intra-party dispute in a labour union, given criminal colour and a false complaint filed by the respondent. He would submit that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the fact and failed to look into the fact that civil suit is pending between the parties. The Civil Court granted an order of injunction in favour of the petitioners in I.A.No.136 of 2010 in O.S.No.186 of 2010 on the date of the alleged incident. The case projected against the petitioners is that on 27/3/2010, the petitioners entered the office of the Coimbatore Periyar District Dravida Panchalai Tozhilalar Munnetra Sangam at Tatabad, Coimbatore, opened the Almirah and taken away the documents and registers from the office. The respondent lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police which was not entertained and thereafter, a private complaint filed. The Trial Court recorded sworn statement of respondent, one Thiyagarajan and Kaliappan, though not cited as witness in the complaint, examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The Trial Court failed to consider that the respondent filed the private complaint just a day before the proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C., initiated by the RDO to circumvent the RDO proceedings and to gain muster for the civil suits, private complaint filed. On the entire reading of the complaint taken as a whole would show that no offence committed by the petitioners and the act of the respondent filing the above complaint is an act of political vendetta with malafide intention. He would further submit that the allegation that the petitioner forged the signature of the respondent in the notice dtd. 6/3/2010 is baseless, the disputed signature not subjected to any forensic examination. The ingredients of offence of criminal trespass and theft alleging that the petitioners entered the office building would not sustain. The petitioners were elected on 24/3/2010 as office bearers of the Sangam and they also obtained an order of interim injunction in the Civil Court in favour of them. In view of the same, there is no offence made out.

(3.) The learned senior counsel further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 before the Trial Court is that on 27/3/2010 at about 7.30 p.m., the petitioners along 50 unidentified persons, entered the office of the Sangam, committed the offence, the complainant preferred a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police alleging petitioners, stolen the documents followed by another complaint to the Rathinapuri Police and complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore on 1/4/2010. These complaints marked as E.P9, Ex.P10 and Ex.P13. The complainant admitted that a civil suit in O.S.No.186 of 2010 filed by the petitioner which is marked as Ex.P5 with other documents marked as Ex.P6 to Ex.P8. Further, the complainant admits that he received the RDO notice dtd. 30/3/2010 which is marked as Ex.P12. Further, the complainant himself admits that he filed a suit in O.S.228 of 2010 against the petitioners. Both the civil suits, O.S.No.186 of 2010 which got re-numbered as O.S.No.615 of 2010 and O.S.No.228 of 2010 tried together and judgment was delivered and the judgments of the Civil Court marked as Ex.P19 to Ex.P21. Further, the list of missing documents from the Union Office marked as Ex.P14, an Official Receiver was appointed as per Ex.P17. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is that P.W.2/Thiyagarajan informed about the occurrence. P.W.2 deposed that he was informed about the occurrence at about 6.00 p.m. On 27/3/2010 and he came to the Union Office and when he entered to enter the Union Office, the petitioners and 50 others prevented him from entering the Union Office and threatened him at 7.30 p.m., P.W.1 and others came there, they were also prevented from entering the office. Further, P.W.2 states that the documents of the Union were taken in a car and thereafter P.W.1 lodged the complaint. The evidence of P.W.3 is that on 27/3/2010 at about 3.00 p.m., he came to the Union Office and at 5.30 p.m., P.W.2 called him and informed about the incident which clearly proves contradiction of statements of the witnesses. Ex.P8 is the complaint lodged by the 4th petitioner against P.W.1 and P.W.2 on 25/3/2020 and C.S.R. also assigned. Further on 27/3/2010, a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners against P.W.1 to P.W.3 and obtained an order of injunction against them.