A.S. ANWARDEEN Vs. BARAKKATHULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.441 of 2007 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.

(2.) The case of the first respondent is that the petitioner is his brother-in-law and the petitioner sold the property belong to his wife to 18 persons, without the knowledge of the wife of the first respondent. That apart, the petitioner failed to pay the sale consideration, which amount to Rs.65,93,000.00. Further it is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner had also misappropriated a sum of Rs.25,54,300.00 accrued from the profit through the Crusher and Lorry Transport Business. Therefore, the present private complaint was filed by the first respondent against the petitioner for the offence under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent has not made out any congnizable criminal offence against the petitioner much less than a civil transaction. He further submitted that the petitioner and the first respondent are closely blood relatives and the first respondent had already instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants therein including the petitioner herein in O.S.No.562 of 2006 before the learned District Munsif, Palani and the same is pending. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent earlier made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul on 21/7/2006, who in turn forwarded the same to the District Crime Branch, Dindigul, in serial number G319683 and the District Crime Branch, after a through enquiry came to the conclusion that there is no iota of truth lies in the complaint of the first respondent and hence not proceeded against the petitioner. Aggrieved against the said action of the second respondent, the first respondent filed a direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7812 of 2006, to register an FIR against the petitioner. However, for the reasons best known to the first respondent he withdrew the said petition and this Court vide order dtd. 28/2/2007 dismissed the said direction petition as withdrawn. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.441 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. If the said proceedings are allowed to proceed against the petitioner, it will cause great prejudice to him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow this petition by quashing the said proceedings.