N. KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. SALAPURI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, filed under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C., the present revision case is filed. The case of the complainant/petitioner is that when the 1st respondent has constructed a house, adjacent to his house, she did not obtain any prior permission from Salem Municipal Corporation and in that process, his house was damaged. When he questioned the same, she was not bothered. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No. 980 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court -II, Salem, claiming compensation of Rs. 80,000/ -, towards damage of the building. Coming to know of the said fact, the 1st respondent, with the help of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Salem, 2nd respondent herein, has lodged a complaint with Ammapet Police Station. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, used to call him, on so many occasions and insisted him to compromise the matter amicably, with the 1st respondent, otherwise, the 2nd respondent would foist a false case against him. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has approached the learned District and Sessions Judge and obtained an anticipatory bail. He was to sign before the Cyber Crime, Salem. Whenever, the petitioner appeared on the said police station, he was insisted to withdraw the suit and also threatened that another case would be registered against him. In the above said circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a private complaint, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Salem, against the respondents herein, for the offences, under Ss. 120(B), 211, 219, 220 and 506(1) I.P.C. Without considering the statements of the petitioner, witness, Sankar and other relevant records, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Salem, has rejected the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed.

(2.) Inviting the attention of this Court to the contents of the complaint, dated 29.07.2013, Mrs. R. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the production of material documents and statements, the learned Magistrate, has dismissed the complaint, without any valid reason.

(3.) Adverting to the statement of witnesses and the material documents, the learned Magistrate, while framing a question, as to whether, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, to proceed against the respondents, has observed that the complainant is an Advocate. The main allegation made in the complaint is that the 2nd respondent had exerted pressure, on the petitioner, to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 980 of 2011, filed by him, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court -II, Salem, against his adjacent owner, viz., 1st respondent. A suit has been filed for damages against her.