V. DEVADOSS Vs. STATE AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C. No. 124 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. The 2nd respondent S.Rajagopalan is the de-facto complainant and based on his complaint dated 06.06.2011, an FIR in Crime No. 777 of 2011 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Perur Police Station, Coimbatore District against three persons namely 1. Chandrasekar, 2. Suganthi, 3. V.Devadoss for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420, 418, 468 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, after conclusion of investigation, final report dated 10.01.2013 was filed against the above mentioned persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 418, 468 and 342 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he entered into a lease agreement dated 06.12.2006 with the accused No. 1 and 2 for a period of 10 years in respect of a vacant land situated at Site No. 27 and 28, Perur Chettipalayam Village, Coimbatore, measuring 894 sq.ft., on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- and also paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards rental advance. His further contention is that he was regular in paying monthly rents and the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant, who purchased a portion of a land from the accused No. 1 and 2 insisted the petitioner to vacate the property, which forced the petitioner to file a suit in O.S. No. 410 of 2011 before the District Munsif, Coimbatore and to obtain an order of injunction. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant, aggrieved over the order of injunction passed against him, lodged a false complaint against the petitioner herein in Crime No. 777 of 2011 of Perur Police Station, Coimbatore.

(3.) Mr. B,Ullasavelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had vacated the leasehold property and therefore, the case against him in C.C. No. 124 of 2013 can be quashed.