SAME GOUNDER Vs. SOODAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED 1 to 13 in P.R.C.No. 6 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.

(2.) SHORT facts are: The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners for offences under Secs.454 and 379 read with 109, I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The first accused is the adoptive father of this complainant. The complainant is owning Door Nos.13-A and 13-B in Anandan Well Street, and they are in his possession. He had kept 110 bags of sabre-bean seeds in the said house for the purpose of business. Disputes arose between the complainant and his father and the complainant had filed suit in O.S.No. 103 of 1989 on the file of Sub-Court and had also filed petition in I.A.No. 235 of 1989 for interim injunction and it is pending. On 4.8.1989, the complainant went to Krishnagiri. At that time, at about 2.00 a.m., the accused 1 to 12 along with two police constables and six labourers came in the lorry bearing No. TNR 679 and criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant. The first accused attempted to break open the lock with an iron rod. The complainant's wife Krishnaveni intervened. At that time, A-1 told that they are doing it on the direction of A-13. Witnesses Duraisamy and Same Gounder intervened. A-9 threatened him that he would put the witnesses inside. A-1 was not able to break open that lock. A-9 tried to break open it with an iron rod. Krishnaveni and Chitra intervened but yet A-9 broke open the lock. With the aid of the other accused, the said 110 bags were taken out and loaded in the lorry. Krishnaveni and Chitra obstructed them. A-3 and A-5 pushed them away. The other accused had helped the labourers who lifted the bags. A-9 two constables and A-12 took Krishnaveni to the Police Station. By about 4.00 p.m., they left the place with the bags. On coming to know of the occurrence, the complainant went to the police station and found Krishnaveni there. A-9 refused to send her back, but later had sent her. While the complainant questioned A-13, he replied that because his words were not heeded, it instigated other accused to remove the bags and challenged him to do whatever he wants. Since police have not taken action, this private complaint is laid.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. From the above, the following facts emerge: The respondent has filed complaint against these 13 petitioners. It in respect of removal of 110 bags of sabre-bean seeds from the buildings bearing Door Nos.l3-A and 13-B, with regard to the very same houses, the complainant has filed a suit in O.S.No. 103 of 1989 on the file of sub court and as well had filed petition, praying for temporary injunction and both of them were pending without any orders passed thereon, at the time of this occurrence. In the sworn statement given by Chitra, one of the witnesses cited in the complaint, she has stated that her grand-father had kept these bags in their house. The grand-father referred to by her is the first accused herein, In the notice sent by the complainant on 7.8.1989 to the Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police and the first accused herein, arraying them as Nos.1 to 3, he has stated as follows: "That No. 3 of you is the adoptive father of my client."