M JOHN BASCO Vs. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners against whom a preliminary enquiry is pending before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tirupattur in P.R.C.No.6 of 1984 for offence under Ss.147, 447, 427 and 379. I.P.C. on a Complaint instituted by the respondent herein, invoke the inherent powers of this Court under S.482, Crl. P.C. for quashing the above proceedings.

(2.) THE Complaint is based on the allegation that on 23.11.1983 the petitioners entered into certain lands in the possession of the respondent and harvested cholam crops, gathered the cholam and stalks in gunny bags; in all valued at Rs.4,000 and also removed a sheep and a lamb from the house of the respondent as also two vessels; in all valued at Rs.650. THE occurrence is said to have taken place in S.Nos.728,728/1,729/2 and 729/A1 in Pudukkottai Village.

(3.) THOUGH the powers of this Court to interfere in prosecutions, which are yet to commence, by quashing them, under S.482, Crl. P.C, should be rare, still in appropriate cases, this Court should not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers in order to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In the instant case, the father or the first petitioner had filed O.S.No. 108 of 1977 against the respondent, his father and brothers. It is significant that the father of the respondent as well as the respondent himself, had attested the sale deed executed by the mother of the respondent in favour of the father of the first petitioner. The Civil Court had granted interim injunction in I.A. No. 487 of 1977. That injunction had been in force till 25th January, 1980 when the father of the first petitioner died. It is true that the first petitioner did not immediately take steps to have himself impleaded as the legal representative and to continue the suit Whatever that, be the Civil Court on 29th July, 1983, had found that there was prima facie material to show that the father of the first petitoner was in possession of the property. Further, the Taluk Executive Magistrate had also found that the first petitioner was in possession of the property. The order of the Taluk Executive Magistrate, had been upheld both by the Sessions Court as well as by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the interim relief granted to him in O.S.No.220 of 1977 by the District Munsif, Tirupathur is still in force. It is not known what exactly is the relief that has been granted to him. Whatever that be Courts had found that the father of the first petitioner and later the first petitoner himself had been in possession of the property. Under these circumstances, it would not be proper to take matters to the criminal court for offences which first require a finding of possession of the Complainant. The cholam crops and stalks are said to have been raised by the respondent and the sheep and the lamb and also two vessels are said to have been removed from the house in Survey No.728/1 said to be in the possession of the respondent. As already indicated by me earlier, Courts had found that there was prima facie material to show that the first petitioner's father and later the first petitioner were in possession of this property. The matter was pending final adjudication in the civil Court Under these circumstances, the trial for offences, which require first a finding regarding possession of the dispute property, should not be allowed to continue in a criminal Court. It would be sheer abuse of the process of the criminal Court. I have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the proceedings.