SUBRAMANIAN SERVAI Vs. ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.218 of 2009 under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur and quash the same.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that there is a previous enmity between the petitioners and the defacto complainant pertaining to the land situated at Surve No.51/3 in N.Pudur Village. The defacto complainant presented a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, alleging that on 25.03.2006 at about 07.00 a.m., the petitioners trespassed into the defacto complainant's land and cut down the Acatia tree and also set fire to the tree and thereafter, threatened him with dire consequences. The complaint was forwarded to the police. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Town, registered a case and after a detailed enquiry, referred the case as Mistake of Fact. Thereafter, the defacto complainant has preferred a private complaint in C.C.No.218 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, for the offences under Sections 447, 435 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. With respect to the property in question, civil litigation went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and ended in favour of the second petitioner in 2002 itself. The respondent/defacto complainant filed C.R.P.No.419 of 2003 and W.P.No.3933 of 2008 and his wife also filed a writ petition in 2007 regarding the same land dispute and all went against the defacto complainant. In the writ petition filed by the wife, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed it with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioners are senior citizens and only with an intention to defame their good images in the public, the private complainant has been lodged. It is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, the same is to be quashed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the defacto complainant, having not succeeded in the civil suit, filed the present complaint only to take vengeance and the present private complainant, without filing any protest petition, is not maintainable. The second limb of argument is as to the maintainability of the private complaint in the absence of protest petition is not sustainable in view of the settled position of law that whether a report of the police opining that no offence appears to have been committed, the Judicial Magistrate, has an option to adopt one of three courses viz., (i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings; or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to be brushed aside.