PASTOR DHARMARAJ JOHNSON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 995/91 is accused number 1 in C.C. No. 286 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kuzhithurai. Petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 1944 of 1991 are accused 2 to 13 therein. On 23.6.90 one Mohankumar preferred a complaint in Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District, against the petitioners under Ss. 147, 148, 447, 427, 379 and 506 -II I.P.C. alleging that his father has purchased an extent of 1.43 acres is Survey Nos. 1013 and 1014 of Edaicode village from one Vedakkan the father of A.1 Dharmaraj, discharged the bank loan as recited in the sale deed and was in enjoyment of the property. It appears that the said Vedakkan has filed O.S. No. 120 of 1988 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai against the said Mohankumar and others for a declaration that Vedakkan is the owner of the suit property and for consequential injunction. On 15.12.1988, the learned Subordinate Judge has granted an interim injunction restraining the present complainant and others from committing any act of waste by cutting the trees or forming new ridges and destroying the old ridges. They were also directed not to alter the physical features of the property. Notice was ordered to the complainant returnable on 18.1.1989. Thereafter, on 25.7.1990 the injunction application was ordered to be called along with the suit. The complainant referred to above states that subsequent to the institution of the civil suit on 13.10.1988 possession of the property was handed over to the complainant by court Amin with the aid of police and since then they are in enjoyment of the property. However, on 22.6.1990 at 10 a.m., the petitioners herein trespassed into the land armed with deadly weapons, destroyed the crop and took away coconuts after threatening the complainant. After investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police has filed a charge sheet under the above said sections. In these petitions, the accused therein seek to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 286 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were in lawful possession of the property and the injunction order in then favour was in force on the date of the alleged occurrence on 22.6.1990, while so, parallel criminal proceedings against them are not maintainable and most of the petitioners are workmen engaged by the first accused for farm work. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P.( : A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 472) wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:

(3.) IN the result, the petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 286 of 1990 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kuzhithurai are hereby quashed.