M DURAISAMY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are arrayed as A1 and A2 in C.C.No.23 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kulithalai. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai, took cognizance for the abovesaid case, based on the final report filed by the first respondent in Crime No.134 of 2012. Further, the first respondent registered the abovesaid case based on the complaint given by the second respondent. Now, the petitioners herein filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said charge sheet pertaining to C.C.No.23 of 2013.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that 20 years back, the de-facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein, married the first petitioner. Thereafter, they do not have any child through their matrimonial life, due to which, the father of the second respondent, had settled certain properties through a Will in favour of the second respondent. During the time of alleged occurrence, the first petitioner herein induced the second respondent by mentioning that her signature is necessary for getting a bank loan. Believing his word, the second respondent also put her signature in the Registrar Office and then only, she came to know that the first petitioner married the second petitioner and living separately. Due to which, a wordy altercation between the first petitioner and the second respondent had happened. Moreover, on 26.03.2012, at 9.00 a.m., when the petitioners came to the agricultural field and asked the second respondent to get out of the agricultural field and threatened with dire consequences, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent, due to which, a case has been registered in Crime No.134 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 420, 494 and 506(i) IPC and ultimately, a charge sheet has been filed by the first respondent for the abovesaid offences.

(3.) Now, in order to substantiate the claim made by the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a submission as for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, the occurrence might have happened only in a public place. But, in the case on hand, as per the case of prosecution, the offence was stated to have happened in an agricultural field owned by the first petitioner and thereby, filing the charge sheet for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is illegal. Further, he added that for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution may say as the person committed the offence is having dishonest intention, but in this case, the settlement deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the first petitioner was properly registered. Further, for the said act, the second respondent/de-facto complaint lodged a complaint after the period of more than 10 years. Furthermore, he submitted for the offence under Section 494 IPC, it could be filed only by way of private complaint under Section 198 Cr.P.C. Further, in the charge sheet, the place and time of occurrence were not mentioned and finally, he invited the attention of this Court to the definition 'criminal intimidation', which reads as follows: