MOHAN NAIR Vs. M S MARGASAGAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH consent of the learned counsel on either side the Criminal Original Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioners herein are the first and second accused in C.C.No.13578 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. THE respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein and one Thiru.Jayagopal and the complaint has been taken on file for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and process has been ordered to be issued by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. On summons being served and after getting the certified copies of the relevant documents the petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.13578 of 2008. Before adverting to the contentions put forth by the learned counsel on either side, it is necessary to set-out in detail the allegations contained in the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant for better appreciation of the case and the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the very filing of the complaint itself is a clear abuse of process of the Court. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the complaint itself the complainant/respondent has admitted that 'the Corporation is in possession of the property and a suit has been filed to quit and deliver vacant possession and for damages and as such the allegation that accused 1 and 2 are wrongfully and unlawfully helped the third accused to trespass the complainant's land and the petrol bunk income was totally utilized by the third accused' is prima facie not only mutually contradictory but false in the complaint it is alleged that 'the said Court orders with the first and second accused company to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand only) to the complainant and his brothers from 1.6.2003' is misleading since the Corporation has not been arrayed as an accused but the first and second accused have been falsely implicated in their individual capacity.